New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement of arbitral awards

Legal area

Court

10 Dec 2021

SODEXO PASS INTERNATIONAL SAS v HUNGARY [2021] NZHC 371

Citation

[2021] NZHC 371
Court

High Court

The ICSID Convention, as incorporated into New Zealand law by the ICSID Act, requires the High Court to recognise ICSID awards as if they were final domestic judgments (art 54) and preserves state immunity only with respect to execution (art 55); accordingly Hungary cannot invoke adjudicative state immunity to bar recognition in New Zealand and the Court should assume jurisdiction under the High Court Rules to recognise the award, setting aside the protest to jurisdiction.
27 May 2021

HARMON v OCEANIA FOOTBALL CONFEDERATION INCORPORATED [2021] NZHC 1210

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1210
Court

High Court

The court must enforce the CAS award under art 35(1)(b) Sch 1 because OFC failed to establish any statutory ground for refusal under art 36: OFC had the opportunity to present and did present art 11 before the arbitrator so there was no breach of natural justice or inability to present its case, and the award did not decide matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration; consequently the award is enforced by entry as a judgment.
1 Sept 2017

NICHOLSON v DUNICK [2017] NZHC 2126

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2126
Court

High Court

Summary judgment on the partition application was declined because s 339 confers a wide judicial discretion requiring assessment of comparative hardship, contractual and equitable considerations, and practical consequences; genuine factual and equitable disputes (existence of deadlock, potential loss of cross-lease protections, issues of unclean hands, and feasibility and fairness of proposed partition) made summary determination unsafe and a full hearing or alternative dispute resolution was required.
9 Mar 2017

THE RINTOUL GROUP LIMITED v THE FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 364

Citation

[2017] NZHC 364
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal denied because the asserted legal questions were fact dependent, the arbitrator's findings that the PS1 requirement was reasonable under the Building Act and contract and that traffic management responsibility lay with the contractor were open on the evidence, the liquidated damages claim was properly within the scope of the arbitration and pleaded, and the appeal points lacked sufficient strength or wider precedent value to justify leave.
16 Jun 2016

EX UCL LIMITED v SOLARIX NETWORKS LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1303

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1303
Court

High Court

The arbitrator committed an error of law by failing to cross‑check his plain meaning of the defined term 'Trade Debts' against the documentary context, specifically clause 13 as construed by the High Court, and by placing excessive weight on commercial common sense; accordingly the further award dated 21 August 2015 was set aside and judgment entered for the plaintiff for $177,096.39 with costs and disbursements, with residual issues as to arbitrator costs and interest reserved for further submissions.
21 Aug 2015

BSC CONSTRUCTION LTD v WITHERS [2015] NZHC 1988

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1988
Court

High Court

Because the parties knowingly adopted the Expedited Arbitration Rules which limited procedural protections and provided the arbitrator discretion to determine evidence on the papers, the arbitrator did not breach the rules of natural justice by making findings on sworn statements filed in accordance with the agreed procedure; accordingly the awards were enforceable and the applications to set them aside or to appeal were dismissed.
2 May 2014

SHELL (PETROLEUM MINING) CO LTD v VECTOR GAS CONTRACTS LTD [2014] NZHC 889

Citation

[2014] NZHC 889
Court

High Court

Para [171] did not constitute a fundamental or necessary step in the logic of the Court's pricing decision and therefore could not found an issue estoppel; the Court held that the pricing decision would stand without the reasoning in [171] and declined leave to appeal.
3 Nov 2010

HI-GENE LIMITED V SWISHER HYGIENE FRANCHISE CORPORATION SC 87/2010

Citation

SC 87/2010
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed leave because the lower courts had reasonably and fairly appraised the factual circumstances, the refusal of adjournment and consequent hearing in absence were not in context sufficiently egregious to amount to a fatal breach of natural justice, and there was no question of general principle or appearance of miscarriage warranting further appeal.
3 Jul 2009

CHEUNG V PLASTERTECH LIMITED HC WN CIV-2009-485-630

Citation

openlaw-8b2e129d_9ff3_4e91_a495_7d14c4f19569.pdf
Court

High Court

Article 35(3) must be read non-exclusively so that where an award falls within the District Court's monetary jurisdiction both the High Court and the District Court fall within the term 'a Court' in art 35(1)(b); accordingly the High Court retains jurisdiction and the applicant's jurisdictional challenge is rejected.
16 Aug 2007

DOWNER CONSTRUCTION (NZ) LTD V SILVERFIELD DEVELOPMENTS LTD CA CA65/06

Citation

openlaw-6aa64d74_f8a5_4751_b529_32c44d44e40c.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

All three applications for leave were dismissed: (1) special leave out of time to appeal Heath J's order entering arbitral awards as judgments was refused because the application was filed late, Downer had consented to entry and the belated challenge had no reasonable prospect of success; (2) Randerson J did not refuse leave on other questions so there was no jurisdiction under cl 5(5) for appeal and CA156/06 dismissed; (3) special leave to appeal Harrison J's substantive judgment was refused because the Court of Appeal test for second appeals was not met, questions could not be widened beyon…