New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of consent orders

Legal area

Court

12 Oct 2022

LIM & Ors v Yip [2022] NZHC 2631

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2631
Court

High Court

Clause 6 of the consent orders did not authorise a formal forensic enquiry or reconciliation; without prejudice drafts could not be relied on and the settlement release barred re‑opening matters; the application was hopeless and pursued unreasonably (including an ulterior motive), justifying indemnity costs against the applicant; VATL's fees are payable personally by Steven; mortgage B.328676.2 should be placed on the computerised record of title under s16 LTA 2017 to permit registration of the executed discharge when appropriate.
15 Mar 2022

JOHNSON v JOHNSON [2022] NZHC 465

Citation

[2022] NZHC 465
Court

High Court

The court found a serious question to be tried as to ownership and possible breach of clause 1.32(b) of the Consent Orders and that the balance of convenience favoured interim relief; accordingly the interim order was varied to require the respondent to return specified fixtures, fittings and chattels removed between 7 and 13 March 2022 by a deadline, subject to limited exceptions and reserved applications, and to prohibit personal return to the property.
23 Nov 2012

Y V B HC AK CIV 2011-404-5559

Citation

openlaw-5cbcfbd8_5e53_455a_b1d5_b86311f72b74.pdf
Court

High Court

The consent order of 21 February 2012 unambiguously stayed the Family Court relationship property proceeding in its entirety, including interim distribution applications; B failed to establish a qualifying mistake or injustice warranting variation under the Contractual Mistakes Act or the Court's inherent jurisdiction; Associate Judge Bell did not finally rule that privilege claims could not be challenged for waiver and his discovery order stands; further particular discovery for 2009–2011 is not justified on the materials produced.
11 Dec 2007

G KAIN AND OTHERS V J R HUTTON HC CHCH CIV 2000-409-000962

Citation

openlaw-9b4247a0_1f52_4cc4_9eb1_e04b5e7fa18d.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court construed the consent order as authorising the sale of and application of proceeds from all stock, including the E D Couper Estate's half share, on the basis of the order read as a whole and the relevant background; however relief under the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977 was refused because the requisite mistaken state (common or known unilateral mistake) and resulting substantial inequality in the context of the whole agreement were not established; consequently it was not in the interests of justice to vary the consent order and the application was dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

LIM & Ors v Yip [2022] NZHC 2631

JOHNSON v JOHNSON [2022] NZHC 465

Y V B HC AK CIV 2011-404-5559

G KAIN AND OTHERS V J R HUTTON HC CHCH CIV 2000-409-000962