New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Injunctions

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2023

LAU v SILVER HARBOUR CAPITAL TRUSTEE LTD [2023] NZHC 3745

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3745
Court

High Court

The caveat was removed because it was defective on its face (purporting to protect an interest in a different certificate of title) and because any equitable interest asserted by the applicant, if it exists, is subordinate to the respondent's prior registered mortgage of which the respondent had no notice and does not prevent exercise of the mortgagee's power of sale; the caveat was an abuse of process and removal was ordered with indemnity costs to the respondent, while an injunction against further caveats was adjourned as beyond the Associate Judge's jurisdiction.
12 Dec 2023

BODY CORPORATE 68792 v MEMELINK AND FORSTER [2023] NZHC 3637

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3637
Court

High Court

The interlocutory application to remove the court-appointed administrator was struck out because proceedings by or against the trust are stayed by the receivership orders unless the receivers consent or the Court orders otherwise, the application constituted an abuse of process and impermissible relitigation, the trustees did not have standing to pursue removal when the trust (in receivership) is the unit owner and no leave or consent was obtained, and the administrator's failure to lodge a sealed order on title did not invalidate his appointment.
1 Sept 2023

WU & Ors v XING [2023] NZHC 2409

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2409
Court

High Court

The applications to set aside the bankruptcy notices were dismissed because Mr Zhong failed to establish a genuine triable cross-claim in liability and quantum equal to or exceeding the judgment debts; his asserted entitlement to settlement proceeds was incorrect (funds payable to Green Land and held in trust), many asserted claims re-litigated issues already determined, and pending appeals or stay applications do not constitute cross-claims under s17.
21 Aug 2023

SAHAR EHSANI INVESTMENT LIMITED v RETYRED (2020) LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2258

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2258
Court

High Court

Defendants were found liable on the breach of lease and trespass claims; the appropriate measure of damages for the lease breach was the plaintiff's claimed cost of repair discounted by 5% because the lease had less than four years to run and it was likely the plaintiff would effect remediation or terminate the lease early; award for breach of lease was $1,645,262.39; injunction granted restraining agents/employees of the first defendant from entering the 179 Dominion Road driveway; general damages of $5,000 and exemplary damages of $20,000 awarded against the first defendant for repeated, hi…
8 Aug 2023

LI AND OTHERS v GREEN LAND INVESTMENT LIMITED AND OTHERS [2023] NZHC 2098

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2098
Court

High Court

Mr Xing's applications to disqualify counsel were dismissed as without merit and vexatious; his applications to stay enforcement were dismissed in respect of the eighteenth plaintiffs because he offered no credible basis and appeared intent on delay; a conditional stay of enforcement was granted for the purchaser plaintiffs only if Mr Xing paid security for costs and applied for a fixture in respect of both appeals by 28 August 2023; costs were awarded against Mr Xing, including indemnity costs in relation to the applications against the eighteenth plaintiffs.
14 Jun 2023

WAHAROA LAND HOLDINGS LIMITED v WAHAROA INDUSTRIAL PARK LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1480

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1480
Court

High Court

On a realistic overall assessment the first defendant succeeded: it pragmatically settled minor causes and successfully defended the main breach of contract claim at a two-day trial. Therefore the plaintiff must pay the first defendant's costs; the Court awarded $29,019.50 on a 2B scale with a Band A adjustment for two items.
26 May 2023

THORNLEY v FORD [2023] NZHC 1257

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1257
Court

High Court

Plaintiffs' substantive claims were dismissed; therefore plaintiffs must pay the first defendants' costs on a 2B scale subject to specific disallowances and a 20% reduction because the late transfer of the land to PPL (intended to thwart plaintiffs and extract trustees from litigation) materially and unnecessarily increased plaintiffs' costs; the defendants' letter proposing a new easement was not a formal settlement offer under r 14.6(3)(b)(v) and did not justify increased costs; no orders were made for interlocutory injunction costs because the file showed consent orders and costs were rese…
15 Dec 2022

GIBBS v FIRST GAS LTD [2022] NZCA 627

Citation

[2022] NZCA 627
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the PECs together with the Petroleum Act 1937 give First Gas a right of entry on the land to which the certificates relate for inspection, repair and maintenance of the pipeline and to deposit/store machinery as necessary; those rights are not confined to the 12 metre pipeline strip shown on the PEC diagrams, the prior construction-phase Maui Pipeline Agreement did not bind or limit First Gas and was effectively superseded by the PECs, and a permanent injunction restraining the Trustees from obstructing access was appropriate given the history of obstruction and the public…
9 Dec 2022

ZHONG v WU & ORS [2022] NZHC 3322

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3322
Court

High Court

The caveators demonstrated clearly arguable equitable interests in the properties and, given existing High Court findings (Jagose J) favouring specific performance and the fact the caveats were lodged prior to transfer of the mortgage interest, the applicant failed to show the caveators would derive no legitimate benefit from maintaining their caveats; accordingly the court refused to remove the caveats and dismissed the applications.
31 Aug 2022

GIBBS v FIRST GAS LTD [2022] NZCA 414

Citation

[2022] NZCA 414
Court

Court of Appeal

Hansard extracts, the Select Committee report and official proclamation and maps were unnecessary to adduce as evidence and may be relied on as authorities; the Maui Pipeline Agreement (MPA) was admissible as further evidence despite not being fresh given its potential relevance to the narrative on interpretation; all listed correspondence (items 6, 9–18 and 20) were not admissible because they lacked relevance and would unduly prolong the appeal; a one-day extension for filing the appeal was granted; no order as to costs.