New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forum non conveniens

Legal area

Court

7 Dec 2023

GRIFFITHS v ISLAND GRACE (FIJI) LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) [2023] NZCA 627

Citation

[2023] NZCA 627
Court

Court of Appeal

Satori was unable to pay its debts within the meaning of the Companies Act, the High Court of New Zealand was the appropriate forum to appoint a liquidator of a New Zealand company, the appellant lacked standing and failed to show an arguable case of solvency or other legitimate interest to restrain or stay the liquidation, and therefore the liquidation order was properly made; interim relief and applications to adduce further evidence on appeal were rightly refused and the appeal was dismissed.
31 Oct 2023

PACIFIC AUTO CARRIER (NZ) LTD v JACANNA HOLDINGS LTD [2023] NZHC 3058

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3058
Court

High Court

A stay was granted until final determination of the Japanese appeal because there were foreign proceedings in train that were likely to determine the substantive question of entitlement to the D2D business; the Japanese forum was better placed to decide the controlling issue (derivative action concerning director conduct and control of IBC Japan), the prejudice to the defendant from proceeding in New Zealand (costs of discovery and particulars) outweighed the limited delay to the plaintiff, and the defendant had made out a sufficient prima facie case to justify the stay.
31 Aug 2023

KEA INVESTMENTS LTD v WIKELEY FAMILY TRUSTEE LTD (IN INTERIM LIQUIDATIN) [2023] NZHC 2412

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2412
Court

High Court

The plaintiff was entitled to costs as the substantially successful party; costs assessed at Category 3 with Band C allowances for specified steps; expert fees were reasonably necessary and proportionate given the multi-jurisdictional complexity and urgency; the first and second defendants are jointly and severally liable for costs and disbursements of $246,234.67; the third defendant, despite taking no steps, is jointly and severally liable for $135,281.58 based on apportionment (full liability for without-notice steps, and 50% of on-notice and expert costs).
31 Aug 2023

KEA INVESTMENTS LTD v WIKELEY FAMILY TRUSTEE LTD (IN INTERIM LIQUIDATION) [2023] NZHC 2407

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2407
Court

High Court

Extension of time and leave to appeal were refused and interim stay declined because the applicant's unexplained and substantial delay (over ten weeks), conduct (including steps appearing to evade Court orders and to assign/enforce the Kentucky judgment), and prejudice to the plaintiff outweighed the significance of the proposed appeal; additionally, on the merits the High Court correctly concluded New Zealand was the appropriate forum for Kea's conspiracy/fraud claims and there was no arguable error warranting appellate intervention.
21 Aug 2023

DAMIN LUN v YONGCING KONG [2023] NZHC 2256

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2256
Court

High Court

The Court allowed a 2B second counsel allowance given the objective complexity of conflict of laws issues, held the plaintiff's expert witness fee was reasonably necessary and recoverable under r 14.12 despite being of limited significance to the judgment, refused to entertain claims or set-off of costs from the Chinese proceeding for lack of jurisdiction, and declined to award additional costs for the costs memorandum.
1 Jun 2023

LUN v KONG [2023] NZHC 1370

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1370
Court

High Court

The Court had personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction to hear the in personam trust claim because the pleaded trust admissions and operative documents arose in New Zealand and both parties are resident there; the defendant failed to establish that China was a clearly or distinctly more appropriate forum, so the protest to jurisdiction was set aside.
10 Mar 2023

KEA INVESTMENTS LTD v WIKELEY FAMILY TRUSTEE LTD [2023] NZHC 466

Citation

[2023] NZHC 466
Court

High Court

The Court held it has jurisdiction over the New Zealand company (WFTL) and Mr Wikeley; on the interlocutory material the Coal Agreement and its jurisdiction clause cannot be reliably declared genuine or exclusive, but Kea has a plausible evidential basis that the Coal Agreement may be a forgery or liable to be set aside for fraud; the jurisdiction clause does not plainly cover Kea's conspiracy and declaratory claims; New Zealand is the appropriate forum to determine Kea's claims; accordingly the defendants' applications to dismiss or stay on jurisdiction/forum grounds were dismissed, the prot…
29 Nov 2021

HUANG v CHEN [2021] NZHC 3232

Citation

[2021] ERNZ 1259
Court

High Court

The Court refused to stay the first counterclaim because although governed by Chinese law the joint venture agreement is pleaded and central to the New Zealand proceedings, the remedies sought are in personam and enforceable against plaintiffs who have submitted to New Zealand jurisdiction, there is no concurrent Chinese litigation and considerations of convenience and efficiency favour New Zealand. The Court struck out the fifth counterclaim because it is, on its factual substance, an employment relationship problem concerning recovery of wages and thus falls within the Employment Relations…
29 Oct 2021

HUANG v HUANG [2021] NZHC 2902

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2902
Court

High Court

Personal service on the defendant in the PRC was effected contrary to PRC law (Civil Procedure Law art 277) and therefore invalid under High Court Rules r6.32(4); as a consequence the Court lacked jurisdiction and the proceeding must be dismissed; alternatively, even if service had been valid the Court should not assume jurisdiction because the PRC is the clearly appropriate forum for the core disputes; ancillary freezing orders were discharged because there was no real risk of dissipation.
23 Sept 2021

PRUDENCE ANNE ADDLEMAN v LAMBIE TRUSTEE LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2504

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2504
Court

High Court

The court refused the stay. It held New Zealand was the more appropriate forum because the trust is governed by New Zealand law, the trustee and many relevant parties and trust assets are in New Zealand, adjudication in New Zealand avoids duplication and risk of inconsistent judgments, and efficiency and justice require the fourth cause of action against Edmonton Co Pty Ltd be heard with the related claims in New Zealand; questions of Panamanian and Australian law could be proven by expert evidence but did not justify severing Edmonton to Australia.