1 Apr 2021
The defendants did not succeed on their stay application because the High Court was the more appropriate forum given jurisdictional complications (including that the land is General Land); therefore the general rule applies and the plaintiff is entitled to costs on a 2B basis of $7,328 plus disbursements of $1,150.92.
28 Jun 2017
The exclusive New Zealand jurisdiction clause was enforceable; defendants failed to demonstrate strong or exceptional circumstances to displace it because the alleged variation was vague and undocumented, Nexus acted as the plaintiff's agent and no credible basis for an independent third‑party claim or real risk of inconsistent judgments was shown; accordingly the defendants' r 5.49 application was dismissed and their appearance set aside pending summary judgment directions.
16 Nov 2006
Once a s 106(1)(a) settlement ground is established there is no presumption in favour of return; the court must determine whether return should be ordered principally by reference to the child's welfare and best interests under s 4(1), while also taking into account the Convention's purposes and any countervailing factors (eg concealment) that clearly outweigh the child's interests; on the facts return would have been contrary to these children's welfare and the appeal is dismissed.