New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Without-notice orders

Legal area

Court

16 Jun 2023

Redcoats Ltd v Day & Ando Realty Ltd [2023] NZHC 1502

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1502
Court

High Court

The application to set aside the without‑notice interim restraining orders was dismissed because there remains a serious question to be tried about the enforceability of the three‑month, 15 km restraint; the arbitration clause did not preclude interim relief; damages would be an inadequate remedy in the factual matrix (overlap of clients and continuation from same premises); and the balance of convenience and overall justice favour maintaining the interim injunctions.
16 Dec 2022

WAKE UP COMMERCIAL LIMITED v EXTENSION CAPITAL LIMITED [2022] NZHC 3485

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3485
Court

High Court

The court dismissed the applicants' application for an interim injunction restraining registration of mortgage instrument 12366013.1 and rescinded the without-notice interim orders made by Moore J on 27 July 2022; the detailed reasons are reserved in a separate judgment to be issued.
31 May 2022

POWERNET LIMITED v ARTHUR [2022] NZHC 1249

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1249
Court

High Court

The Court recalled the 5 May 2022 judgment because the annexure was incorrect and, having been satisfied on the affidavit evidence that the requirements of r 32.2 were met, substituted a freezing order on notice restraining the defendants from removing, disposing of, dealing with, or diminishing the value of the assets specified in Annexure A.
12 Oct 2021

GREEN WAY LIMITED v MUTUAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2727

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2727
Court

High Court

Indemnity costs were declined because the plaintiff's failure to disclose did not meet the exceptionally bad or improper conduct threshold required for indemnity; however the plaintiff's non‑compliance did justify a 25% uplift on scale costs. Scale costs were assessed at $10,396.50 and with a 25% uplift the defendants were awarded $12,995.63.
13 Apr 2018

SHARMA & ORS v MUNDATH & ORS [2018] NZHC 675

Citation

[2018] NZHC 675
Court

High Court

Because the plaintiffs demonstrated a good arguable case of widespread fraud, produced evidence of overseas transfers and risk of dissipation, and provided undertakings as to damages, the Court granted worldwide freezing orders and ancillary disclosure orders limited in duration and subject to carve-outs for ordinary living, legal and business expenses; JP Morgan Chase was excluded for lack of evidence.
27 Feb 2017

HANSA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v HIBBS [2017] NZHC 273

Citation

[2017] NZHC 273
Court

High Court

Because there was no opposition and the circumstances warranted preservation of the status quo, the High Court extended the without-notice freezing order made 15 December 2016 until 1 July 2017 (or further order), with para 8 modified to confirm expiry and the right of parties to be heard on continuation or renewal.
28 Mar 2012

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE V VINCENT HC AK CIV 2012-404-925

Citation

openlaw-78fde311_bb0f_4620_ba2b_c05d46736262.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 39(2) requires the filing of an on‑notice application within seven days to preserve a without‑notice restraining order but does not impose an obligation to effect service within that seven‑day period; service obligations arise under court rules thereafter and the applicant must prosecute the application speedily and with due diligence, so the without‑notice order did not lapse.
27 Apr 2009

SOOD AND ANOR V WENSLEY DEVELOPMENTS THE MARINA LIMITED HC INV CIV-2009-425-000099

Citation

openlaw-b08f253d_0e04_4a81_a43d_6edd254667ee.pdf
Court

High Court

Although the sworn affidavit was not filed by the date indicated, the affidavit subsequently sworn was identical to the unsworn version and counsel genuinely intended to file it; there was no evidence of an attempt to mislead the Court, so rescission would be disproportionate; however the defendant is entitled to costs on a 2B basis.
22 Feb 2008

RENSHAW V UNDERHILL HC HAM CIV 2007-419-0507

Citation

openlaw-34188daf_bced_4d2f_970a_6da13c77e53d.pdf
Court

High Court

No statutory requirement exists for a separate hearing to discharge a temporary protection order; s 80 permits discharge and the making of final orders at the same hearing; the appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or that the Family Court was plainly wrong on credibility and factual findings; therefore the Family Court orders are confirmed, with variation of the anger management programme attendance to a 26‑week HAIP programme commencing 3 March 2008.