New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement of foreign judgment

Legal area

Court

10 Dec 2018

CULLEN GROUP LTD v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2018] NZHC 3238

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3238
Court

High Court

Kea was granted access because the documents sought had been used and presented in open court at the substantive hearing, had already been accessed by the media, and Kea's purpose—enforcement of a foreign judgment and related proceedings—was a legitimate public purpose that advances the orderly and fair administration of justice; these factors outweighed Cullen Group's general claim of commercial sensitivity, particularly given Cullen had not sought confidentiality orders. Disclosure was conditioned on Kea's undertaking to use the documents only for the English and related proceedings without…
26 Sept 2018

MERISANT COMPANY, INCORPORATED v FLUJO SANGUINEO HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED [2018] NZCA 390

Citation

(2018) 24 PRNZ 480
Court

Court of Appeal

No abuse of process was established: the assignee Flujo2 was a legally distinct and genuine plaintiff, r15.24 did not apply, there was no finding the assignment was a sham to defeat the costs order, and the High Court was not obliged to stay the proceedings; Merisant's remedies include sealing and enforcing the costs judgment and seeking security for costs.
17 Jul 2018

PACIFIC PREMIER BANK v ASIATRUST NEW ZEALAND LIMITED & ORS [2018] NZHC 1762

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1762
Court

High Court

The Court held that the California Superior Court had jurisdiction, the award was for a definite sum and final, no exceptions to enforcement applied, and there was an arguable case that funds held in New Zealand were proceeds moved to defeat satisfaction and were at real risk of dissipation; accordingly a without‑notice freezing order was justified and granted.
5 Dec 2013

Kiwi Air Limited v UTS Geophysics Pty Limited [2013] NZHC 3236

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3236
Court

High Court

Kiwi Air established the threshold requirements but failed to show New Zealand was the appropriate forum; factors including the parties' choice of Australian governing law, UTS's lack of connection to New Zealand, the desirability that Australian law issues be determined in Australia, and general caution about subjecting foreign defendants to local jurisdiction meant the dispute should be tried in Australia; accordingly the application to set aside the appearance was dismissed and the proceeding stayed.
14 Oct 2011

EXPORTRADE CORPORATION V IRIE BLUE NZ LTD & ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-007130

Citation

openlaw-8cc4844c_e251_463d_8cbc_72c9af2e6456.pdf
Court

High Court

Although the plaintiff is incorporated outside New Zealand and did not pay a prior costs award, the Court was not satisfied that non-payment demonstrated an inability to pay future costs given the procedural uncertainty over the earlier judgment; only one defendant sought security while others exposed to similar risk did not; and granting security would cause further delay and could unjustly impede the plaintiff's access to the courts. Balancing the factors, it was not just to order security for costs, so the application was refused.
4 Mar 2010

YANG V CHEN HC AK CIV-2007-404-1751

Citation

openlaw-1a7cc484_e4f2_4150_9224_cc9a3c34b79f.pdf
Court

High Court

Adjournment was refused because the applicant failed to establish credible, corroborated reasons for long delay or inability to attend; the proposed lengthy adjournment would cause undue prejudice to plaintiffs after protracted litigation and prior adverse findings, and the material did not show a rational basis to prevent the applicant returning to New Zealand.
26 Sept 2007

ROLAND JOHANNES NIJKRAKE V WILLIAM ROBERT MARSMAN, UTA BLEIDESTEL AND THK TRUSTEES LIMITED HC NWP CIV 2007-443-386

Citation

openlaw-37d2db34_4bd6_4fee_a7e5_755cf2b81455.pdf
Court

High Court

Court concluded plaintiff established a reasonably arguable case that Mr Marsman misappropriated Rowi funds and that those funds (or their proceeds) can be traced into the Omata property giving rise to an equitable proprietary interest via a constructive trust; accordingly the caveat should not lapse and the Court would not exercise its residual discretion to remove it pending resolution of the underlying foreign proceedings.

New Zealand Case Law

CULLEN GROUP LTD v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2018] NZHC 3238

MERISANT COMPANY, INCORPORATED v FLUJO SANGUINEO HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED [2018] NZCA 390

PACIFIC PREMIER BANK v ASIATRUST NEW ZEALAND LIMITED & ORS [2018] NZHC 1762

Kiwi Air Limited v UTS Geophysics Pty Limited [2013] NZHC 3236

EXPORTRADE CORPORATION V IRIE BLUE NZ LTD & ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-007130

YANG V CHEN HC AK CIV-2007-404-1751

ROLAND JOHANNES NIJKRAKE V WILLIAM ROBERT MARSMAN, UTA BLEIDESTEL AND THK TRUSTEES LIMITED HC NWP CIV 2007-443-386