New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim injunction

Legal area

Court

21 Dec 2023

WATERWORLD LIMITED v TAUPO WAKE PARK LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3859

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3859
Court

High Court

Application for interim injunction refused because, although there was a barely tenable serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience favored respondents: claimant's restraint of trade had limited apparent merit, applicant had not demonstrated likely irreparable harm (brand dilution or safety risks) that could not be addressed by regulatory oversight or quantified damages, and the applicant failed to supply an adequate undertaking as to damages.
17 Nov 2023

ZHENG v JUN YUE INVESTMENT LTD [2023] NZHC 3244

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3244
Court

High Court

The Court awarded costs to the plaintiffs against the second defendant, Ping Fan, totalling $62,329.80, rejecting the respondent's submissions for an 80% reduction and for excluding forensic accounting disbursements, applying appropriate bandings (including 2B where awarded), and declining to award costs against the corporate defendant because plaintiffs hold shares in it; costs are to be determined now rather than deferred to trial.
10 Nov 2023

BAILEY v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 3146

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3146
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs did not discharge the onus to displace the r 15.23 presumption because the discontinuance resulted from the plaintiffs' voluntary sale (not a supervening external event), the Council did not cause the litigation, and the merits were not so obviously in the plaintiffs' favour; accordingly the default rule applies and the plaintiffs must pay costs on a 2B basis of $14,101.
9 Nov 2023

RAU PAENGA LIMITED v CPB CONTRACTORS PTY LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3144

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3144
Court

High Court

The court declined access because documents relating to proceedings under the Arbitration Act are subject to a rules-based restriction and the relevant balancing of r 12 factors resulted in confidentiality, commercial sensitivity and the orderly administration of justice outweighing the open justice interest, particularly given the judgment already disclosed sufficient public information.
31 Oct 2023

CHRISTIAN CHURCH COMMUNITY TRUST AND OTHERS v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND [Costs] [2023] NZHC 3038

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3038
Court

High Court

Applicants awarded costs on a 2C basis of $18,903 inclusive of disbursements; indemnity costs were refused because applicants failed to satisfy the high threshold under r 14.6/r 14.10 and BNZ's conduct in defending the interlocutory injunction was not vexatious, frivolous or otherwise sufficiently improper to justify departure from scale costs. Adjustments to the applicants' costs schedule were made (second counsel reduced to 0.5 days; appearance at mentions hearing allowed).
31 Oct 2023

WHITES96 LIMITED v THE WHEEL MAGICIAN LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3046

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3046
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the District Court's finding that there is a serious question to be tried because the franchisor has a protectable proprietary interest (goodwill and confidential system) and the restraint was likely reasonable at contracting time; the balance of convenience and overall justice favor maintaining an interim injunction limited in scope, but the formal order required amendment to clarify territorial limits and a defined temporal limit (1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024 or earlier).
20 Oct 2023

AC/JV HOLDINGS LTD v GENERAL CONSTRUCTION GROUP LTD & ANOR [2023] NZHC 2944 [20 October 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2944
Court

High Court

Costs were awarded to AC/JV on a 2B scale with a 40% uplift because GCG unreasonably pursued an expert determination despite clear authority that it was inappropriate, forced AC/JV to bring an urgent without‑notice injunction and opposed that application, and provided no reasonable justification for its conduct.
2 Oct 2023

STEPHEN GILBERT ANDERSON v NZI INTERNATIONAL ACCEPTANCES LIMITED, NZI SECURITIES LIMITED [2023] NZSC 130

Citation

[2023] NZSC 130
Court

Supreme Court

The interim injunction applied only to two identified defective Property Law Act notices and did not bar issuance of fresh notices; the current proceedings are an impermissible relitigation of closed matters and thus an abuse of process, so leave to appeal is refused because no public importance or substantial miscarriage of justice is shown.
29 Sept 2023

PRICE & ORS v KILLARNEY CAPITAL LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2753

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2753
Court

High Court

No serious question to be tried that defendant breached s176: defendant obtained credible forced‑sale valuations and marketing advice, conducted a reasonable tender/marketing process (national and international), achieved sale prices consistent with agent appraisals and forced‑sale valuations despite plaintiffs' obstruction, plaintiffs provided no undertaking as to damages nor paid into Court, and on balance of convenience and overall justice an interim injunction would be unjustified; application dismissed.
21 Sept 2023

STEPHEN GILBERT ANDERSON v NZI INTERNATIONAL ACCEPTANCES LIMITED, NZI SECURITIES LIMITED AND NZI FINANCE LIMITED [2023] NZCA 463

Citation

[2023] NZCA 463
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was struck out because it was a plain abuse of process: it attempted to relitigate a closed, long-dormant proceeding with no prospect of success, was barred by limitation and prior final judgments, and therefore fell within r 44A as frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the court's process.