New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Variation of interlocutory orders

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2021

WHITE v JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2021] NZHC 936

Citation

[2021] NZHC 936
Court

High Court

The court held there was a material change in circumstances given the scale and complexity of the discovery process and that the original security was inadequate; accordingly it increased security by $1.25m to a total of $1.5m (additional $500,000 for discovery to a discovery total of $750,000 and $750,000 for expected scale costs and expert disbursements to the end of Stage 1), refused a stay, required posting of the security within 15 working days and permitted revisit if not posted; ATE insurance and Harbour funding were relevant but not decisive.
12 Nov 2012

FISHER AND FISHER V PHILLIPS AND SARDINERO TRUSTEES LIMITED HC CHCH CIV 2010-409-001985

Citation

openlaw-eb81c411_272e_4375_b14c_6070bfe23e17.pdf
Court

High Court

Award costs to plaintiffs on scale for their success in the ex parte interim proceedings but only against the first‑named first defendant, Baydon John Phillips; Sardinero Trustees Limited not ordered to pay costs due to lack of active involvement; Baydon Phillips entitled to scale costs for his successful application to vary interlocutory orders, reduced by 25% to reflect partial success; no uplift awarded.
31 Mar 2011

LOUISE RUTH CHANWAI V THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE HC ROT CIV-2010-463-544

Citation

openlaw-e3b8b7dd_88cb_4f9f_9a9a_c32cf82fe4f4.pdf
Court

High Court

Examination orders under ss106‑107 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 are not amenable to pre‑execution variation by the court because the Act provides no statutory review mechanism and the general High Court Rules power to vary interlocutory orders (r7.49) does not apply to examination orders; therefore the ex‑parte application to vary the examination order must be dismissed and any objection based on the examinee's claimed lack of knowledge is a matter for the examinee to assert in the examination and for police remedies under the Act.
18 Nov 2008

VALERY VICTOROVICH POLETAEV V PAVEL PETROVICH MORGOUN HC NEL CIV 2008-442-394

Citation

openlaw-9f7b422e_a0dd_460d_8625_ab605b238e80.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found there was a real risk the defendant would dissipate New Zealand assets by transferring them overseas, the alleged grounds of non-disclosure did not establish material non-disclosure sufficient to discharge the mareva orders, the plaintiff's undertaking required tangible security given enforcement risks and accordingly a mortgage up to $20,000 over the Atawhai property was required, and a limited variation releasing $6,000 to the defendant's wife for legal advice was appropriate.
20 Dec 2007

KAISA & ORS AND ANOR V SCANLAN AND ORS HC AK CIV 2003-404-7106

Citation

openlaw-a92981e0_e965_4f47_a490_3d0bfd4de4f2.pdf
Court

High Court

The court will vary the interim orders as agreed between parties where the opposing group's objection does not justify refusal, particularly where that group will not be worshipping at the premises in the foreseeable future; the agreed replacement of pastors (Matafale Lesa and Thomas Fusi Knowles) was lawful and appropriate and the existing order was substituted accordingly.
16 Nov 2005

WILLIAMS V JONES AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2003-404-006565

Citation

openlaw-47c563c6_3376_4f74_925e_65f94902c614.pdf
Court

High Court

Because an active SFO prosecution arising from the same facts had been commenced and the information and documents sought were plainly connected to that prosecution, the defendants' claim to privilege against self-incrimination was properly made and must be upheld; accordingly the defendants were not required to answer Priestley J's questions nor to produce the documents in respect of which privilege was claimed. Separately, the Court will vary the freezing order to permit a limited specified sum for legal costs while requiring an affidavit of total amounts held, balancing defendants' access…

New Zealand Case Law

WHITE v JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2021] NZHC 936

FISHER AND FISHER V PHILLIPS AND SARDINERO TRUSTEES LIMITED HC CHCH CIV 2010-409-001985

LOUISE RUTH CHANWAI V THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE HC ROT CIV-2010-463-544

VALERY VICTOROVICH POLETAEV V PAVEL PETROVICH MORGOUN HC NEL CIV 2008-442-394

KAISA & ORS AND ANOR V SCANLAN AND ORS HC AK CIV 2003-404-7106

WILLIAMS V JONES AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2003-404-006565