New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Declaratory relief jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

29 Oct 2021

GRIGGS AND CHAMBERLAIN ON BEHALF OF NGĀI TŪMAPŪHIA-Ā-RANGI HAPŪ v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 2913

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2913
Court

High Court

The interlocutory injunction was dismissed because plaintiffs failed to establish a serious question to be tried on the Crown claim (entry into the Deed does not itself extinguish legal rights pending legislation), and the asserted procedural defect in beneficiary approval was at best arguable and technical with substantive compliance; on balance of convenience and overall justice preventing a long-negotiated settlement was unjustified. Leave to appeal was granted.
29 Jan 2020

BARTLE GROUP LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY & ANOR [2020] NZHC 35 [29 January 2020]

Citation

[2020] NZHC 35
Court

High Court

Clause 3.14(11) of the VDAM Rule must be interpreted objectively: a HVRS vehicle may tow a disabled heavy motor vehicle to the nearest safe area determined by objective factors in the clause (traffic volume, vehicle load, ability to undertake repair safely at the roadside off the roadway). The Health and Safety at Work Act does not alter or expand the scope of the VDAM exemption. The Court has jurisdiction to entertain declaratory relief but, exercising its discretion, declines to grant the broad, hypothetical declaration sought given the absence of a specific factual context and existing rel…
14 Jun 2017

GREENFIELD GLOBAL LIMITED & ORS v MKAH LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1298

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1298
Court

High Court

Applicants made a reasonably necessary application given respondent's conduct and credible threats of receivership; the application achieved its purpose by securing interim protection and an undertaking; however the respondent's obstructive conduct occurred largely before proceedings were issued so the high threshold for indemnity costs is not met and increased costs are inappropriate because the relevant unreasonable conduct did not materially increase costs after commencement; limited non-disclosure of a non-privileged email was not material enough to reduce costs and the without-prejudice…
25 Jan 2017

TAUEKI v HOROWHENUA DISTRICT COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 34

Citation

[2017] NZHC 34
Court

High Court

The 1973 agreement is not invalid for want of the Levin Borough Council's signature or seal because it gave effect to an earlier council resolution and is saved by s 3(4) of the Public Bodies Contracts Act 1959; the agreement contained sufficient consideration constituted by reciprocal promises; alleged statutory breaches and claims that the agreement is an agreement to commit tort cannot be resolved by declaratory relief in these proceedings and do not render the contract illegal under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970; the 2013 HDC resolution is not determinative and was not relied upon to val…
20 Sept 2016

BUNYAN v PARISH [2016] NZHC 2225

Citation

(2016) 18 NZCPR 163
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its statutory discretion under s 339(1)(c) to order that the applicants purchase the respondent's half share. The respondent receives a purchase price equal to half the property's established value less a credit for the respondent's actual payments ($8,811.15) and a deduction for the applicant's excess contributions ($80,562.85) plus an interest allowance for those excess contributions (~$42,000). Occupation rent for the long post-separation period was declined given the respondent's written disclaimer and conduct; a limited short exclusion claim was not pursued.

New Zealand Case Law

GRIGGS AND CHAMBERLAIN ON BEHALF OF NGĀI TŪMAPŪHIA-Ā-RANGI HAPŪ v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 2913

BARTLE GROUP LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY & ANOR [2020] NZHC 35 [29 January 2020]

GREENFIELD GLOBAL LIMITED & ORS v MKAH LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1298

TAUEKI v HOROWHENUA DISTRICT COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 34

BUNYAN v PARISH [2016] NZHC 2225