New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim preservation orders

Legal area

Court

11 May 2021

LOGAN AND NG v MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION [2021] NZHC 1050

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1050
Court

High Court

Interim preservation order continued because the applicants' challenge was clearly arguable, there was a real risk of irreversible prejudice (loss of freehold, demolition and extinguishment of tenants' leases) if the proclamation took effect, and the balance of convenience and overall interests of justice favoured preserving the status quo pending a substantive hearing which could be allocated promptly; potential procedural unfairness and mistakes of fact in the material to the Minister reinforced need for preservation.
14 Mar 2013

CHILD V BLACKLEY HC WHA CIV-2013-488-140

Citation

openlaw-2d98bc3c_96b3_46f2_bedc_51c5732c5e58.pdf
Court

High Court

The court refused the mandatory interim injunction because the applicants delayed from December 2012 until March 2013, and damages were likely to be an adequate remedy; instead the court made interlocutory preservation orders requiring the defendants to hold and manage surviving animals in accordance with good stock management and set procedures for sale proceeds and interim protection of sheep and a timetable for further proceedings.
2 Oct 2012

ROLLESTON V CHRISTCHURCH RESIDENTIAL CARE LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2011-409-001301

Citation

openlaw-87830ea4_5607_4363_bb87_01bab9e2ce71.pdf
Court

High Court

Given the company's loss and cashflow difficulties, the court ordered cessation of the second defendant's drawings, capped the first defendant's drawings, and reduced both parties' salaries by $10,000 each to preserve the company's financial health pending resolution of the relationship property issues; neither party may take relationship property legal expenses as drawings.
1 Dec 2011

FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY V HOTCHIN HC AK CIV 2010-404-8082

Citation

openlaw-1812fe7e_b575_457c_9b66_958e8702eeea.pdf
Court

High Court

The interim asset preservation orders remain necessary and desirable because the FMA has shown good grounds for its ongoing investigation and a continuing potential risk of asset dissipation; the orders as framed lawfully extend to after-acquired assets and undertakings would provide inferior protection, but limited variations are justified to permit sale/security to meet tax liabilities and identified sundry creditors and to allow reconsideration of living expenses.

New Zealand Case Law

LOGAN AND NG v MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION [2021] NZHC 1050

CHILD V BLACKLEY HC WHA CIV-2013-488-140

ROLLESTON V CHRISTCHURCH RESIDENTIAL CARE LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2011-409-001301

FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY V HOTCHIN HC AK CIV 2010-404-8082