New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adequacy of damages

Legal area

Court

22 Nov 2023

RAU PAENGA LTD v CPB CONTRACTORS PTY LTD [2023] NZHC 3329

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3329
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because CPB failed to demonstrate a sufficiently arguable error of law or fact on matters relevant to leave; the High Court correctly applied Arbitration Act principles and Channel Tunnel reasoning to grant interim relief preserving the status quo to allow the Engineer's contractual determination and the agreed arbitration process to operate; subsequent determination by the Engineer and the balance of harm supported refusal of leave.
21 Oct 2022

PARK LANE BUILDS LIMITED v PARKLANE INFRASTRUCT LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2743

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2743
Court

High Court

Although an arguable breach of cl 38.1 existed, the interim injunction was discharged because Park Lane failed to establish irreparable or non-quantifiable loss that could not be adequately compensated by damages; the balance of convenience and overall justice (by a small margin) favored defendant due to prejudice to prospective purchasers and completion of sale, and the strikeout application was dismissed because the plaintiff's claim was not so untenable that it could not possibly succeed.
3 Dec 2021

BIAN v ELIM PROPERTIES LTD [2021] NZHC 3302

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3302
Court

High Court

There is a serious question to be tried on the applicant's s 174 claim, but the balance of convenience strongly favours the respondents because an interim injunction would likely cause significant prejudice to the company by preventing urgent capital-raising and the court can provide effective remedial relief at trial (including buy-out or compensation), so damages are an adequate and practicable remedy; accordingly the interim injunction is refused.
24 May 2021

VOGEL v PRESTIGE BUILDING REMOVALS LTD [2021] NZHC 1168

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1168
Court

High Court

Although there is a serious question for trial on existence of a contract, the court refused the mandatory interim injunction because compliance was complex and uncertain (site preparation, consents, dismantling) and damages were an adequate remedy; on balance of convenience the defendant would be prejudiced by mandatory relief.
18 Dec 2020

LEADERS HAWKES BAY LIMITED v PIENAAR [2020] NZHC 3460

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3460
Court

High Court

There was a serious question to be tried that the respondent retained and used the applicant's confidential information and intellectual property; the respondent's conduct weighed against her in the balance of convenience; damages would be inadequate to compensate intangible loss; accordingly justice required granting an interim injunction without notice to require return of property and prohibit its use pending further orders.
8 Dec 2020

PATEL v SHAH [2020] NZHC 3235

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3235
Court

High Court

On the facts and information before the court there was a serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience favoured interim relief because the plaintiffs faced significant, non-compensable prejudice to their living arrangements if the agreement were cancelled; damages were not an adequate remedy and equity favoured restraining the defendants from cancelling the management agreement and from re-entry pending further order.
21 Nov 2020

REMARKABLES HOTEL LIMITED v PEARLFISHER TRUSTEE LIMITED [2020] NZHC 3090

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3090
Court

High Court

There was a non‑frivolous (serious) issue to be tried about the validity of the PLA notice; on the balance of convenience the potential irreparable commercial prejudice to Remarkables from continued marketing outweighed the defendants' prejudice from a short restraint; damages may be inadequate for Remarkables; accordingly an interim interim order restraining marketing and advertising pending a fuller hearing was justified, limited to marketing rather than deciding ultimate rights.
10 Nov 2020

SKY SCRAPERS GENERAL TRADING LLC v ZOONO LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2960

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2960
Court

High Court

The application for a mandatory interim injunction was dismissed because, although there is a serious question to be tried about the validity of termination, damages were not shown to be an inadequate remedy, granting mandatory relief would risk imposing substantial and possibly uncompensatable commercial prejudice on Zoono and third parties, the parties' factual disputes and interpretation issues are for trial, and preservation of the status quo pending trial better serves overall justice.
7 Oct 2020

BERGE BULK SHIPPING PTE LTD v TPT SHIPPING LTD [2020] NZHC 2627

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2627
Court

High Court

The New Zealand High Court had jurisdiction to grant the interim relief because the LOI's submission to the English High Court 'at your request' is properly construed as non‑exclusive allowing the beneficiary to choose forum; letters of indemnity obligating provision of bail/security and defence funds are enforceable by mandatory interim injunctions because damages are inadequate and the LOI's commercial purpose would be frustrated otherwise; mitigation by the beneficiary providing security does not extinguish the indemnifier's obligation to reimburse or provide substitute security and defenc…
17 Jul 2020

MODA SYSTEMS AMERICA LLC v GUARDIAN BANDSAWS LTD [2020] NZHC 1737

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1737
Court

High Court

The Court found there was a serious question to be tried on both exclusivity under clause 2.1 and misuse of confidential information, but on balance of convenience and given the plain wording of clause 2.1 and lack of clear evidence of specific confidential material supplied, an injunction preventing GBL from selling into North America was refused; however damages would be inadequate to protect Moda US from misuse of confidential information, so a narrowly tailored interim injunction was granted restraining GBL from using confidential information within the pleaded categories that it received…