16 Apr 2021
The Court refused to include post-judgment interest in the sealed New Zealand judgment because the Californian judgment made no award or mention of interest, no basis or submissions were advanced to support an award of interest, and the sealed judgment must reflect only the orders previously made; costs and disbursements may be recorded in the sealed judgment where specific sums are provided.
26 Feb 2021
The charging order remains in force because ASI has an arguable case that the respondent transferred company assets and remains a creditor-defendant in foreign proceedings, the respondent is actively considering disposal (sale or harvesting) of the forestry block/harvesting rights which would significantly increase the risk of ASI being unable to satisfy any judgment, and the matters not disclosed on the without-notice application would not have altered the Judge's view under r 17.41; accordingly r 17.41(a) is satisfied.
1 Aug 2018
The Court extended the 9 August 2016 charging orders until 29 August 2019 because it was just to do so to permit agreed settlement arrangements to be implemented within the requested period and to preserve enforcement rights if settlement failed, relying on the applicant's representations and the respondent's undertaking to investigate the ownership issue.
15 Dec 2014
Because the Chinese court had quantified the interest up to the date of its calculation and that the New Zealand judgment was sealed under r11.9, the Court could not recall or vary the sealed judgment; where a foreign court has quantified interest in its final judgment the amount is enforceable without requiring the NZ Court to recompute it, but recall applications must be brought before a judgment is drawn up and sealed.