New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Compromise agreement

Legal area

Court

3 Jun 2021

TREVOR JAMES MURRAY v WEST COAST HOLDINGS LIMITED [2021] NZSC 55

Citation

[2021] NZSC 55
Court

Supreme Court

The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed appeal did not raise a matter of general or public importance or commercial significance required for leave under s 74(2) of the Senior Courts Act 2016, there was no demonstrated miscarriage of justice, and the application was filed out of time so an extension would not change the outcome.
20 Jul 2016

PUBLIC TRUST v SILVERFERN VINEYARDS LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1656

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1656
Court

High Court

The court declined to award non-party costs against Grov Holdings Ltd because the evidence established it acted as a pure funder without rights to direct or control Silverfern's defence, it received no material or direct benefit from the Compromise, and funding alone was insufficient to establish the degree of control or benefit required to make an exceptional non-party costs order; consequently the application was not sufficiently exceptional to justify costs against GHL.
16 Dec 2015

PORTER v PORTER [2015] NZHC 3258

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3258
Court

High Court

Threshold for security was met because plaintiff is resident overseas and insolvent; the s 345 claim against PWA Griffin is prima facie unmeritorious because plaintiff joined and ratified the sale by directors' and shareholders' resolutions, while the claim against the first defendants is weak but not so weak as to justify denial of all access to justice; accordingly modest security ($5,000) was ordered for the first defendants and substantial security ($20,000) for the second defendant, with failure to pay resulting in stays and costs ordered as specified.
5 Oct 2006

MURRAY V REBEL GASOLINE LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-00596

Citation

openlaw-3984abf5_03b5_4df7_bcab_9d02a85aa690.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court entered judgment against the second and third defendants because the plaintiff provided an affidavit and settlement statement that satisfactorily verified the composition and amount of the debt ($267,391.25) plus claimed legal costs ($1,997.50), totalling $271,346.55, and the defendants had withdrawn opposition to the summary judgment; the first defendant remains stayed due to liquidation.
13 Dec 2005

SIEMER AND ANOR V FERRIER HODGSON AND ORS CA CA87/05

Citation

openlaw-b2898d69_3661_49c1_9859_79fcecf08bc2.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the High Court interlocutory injunction because there was a seriously arguable contractual cause of action (breach of the compromise agreement clause prohibiting public comment), the appellants were unlikely to establish cancellation of the agreement, damages would be inadequate to protect reputation, and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the injunction; the procedural objection under r 33 was rejected and the Court did not need to decide the defamation point.

New Zealand Case Law

TREVOR JAMES MURRAY v WEST COAST HOLDINGS LIMITED [2021] NZSC 55

PUBLIC TRUST v SILVERFERN VINEYARDS LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1656

PORTER v PORTER [2015] NZHC 3258

MURRAY V REBEL GASOLINE LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-00596

SIEMER AND ANOR V FERRIER HODGSON AND ORS CA CA87/05