New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Irreparable harm

Legal area

Court

15 Sept 2021

FIRST GAS LIMITED v GIBBS, GIBBS AND HORTON [2021] NZHC 2425

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2425
Court

High Court

Leave to file a defence was granted narrowly and conditionally because the Court found the defendants disclosed a substantial ground of defence, but their delay was not reasonably explained; however the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff and public gas supply justified preserving the priority fixture. Accordingly leave was conditional on strict compliance with a truncated timetable and the trial proceeding as a defended hearing on 20 September 2021; the adjournment application was dismissed.
27 Nov 2020

REMARKABLES HOTEL LTD v PEARLFISHER TRUSTEE LTD [2020] NZHC 3146

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3146
Court

High Court

The court found there was a serious question whether the 17 July 2020 notice was valid due to disputed adequacy of service and the notice period being one working day short of the statutory minimum; on balance of convenience and to prevent irreparable loss pending trial the defendants were restrained from taking any step reliant on the validity of that notice, with previous interim order discharged and costs reserved/preliminarily awarded to the plaintiff.
3 Jul 2019

COROMANDEL PENINSULA COURIERS LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY [2019] NZHC 1545

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1545
Court

High Court

Interim relief was granted because the Company's judicial review claim was arguable, refusal would cause irreparable harm to the business and employees, public safety was unlikely to be compromised over the next three months given the Agency's prior delays and the Company's four-star rating, and stringent, monitorable conditions accepted by the Company adequately mitigated safety risks.
15 Sept 2015

KRIECHBAUM v JYRON INVESTMENTS LTD [2015] NZHC 2420

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2420
Court

High Court

The interim injunction was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show any irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages, the balance of convenience was heavily in favour of the defendant given the imminent sale, the plaintiff's claim was weak on the documented wording of the easement and titles, and practical delay and difficulties weighed against granting relief.
22 Aug 2012

HELU V IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL HC AK CIV-2011-404-005937

Citation

openlaw-007ff693_1355_4d31_b300_1ab33922f4f6.pdf
Court

High Court

There was a seriously arguable ground of appeal that the Tribunal may have failed to give adequate weight to the applicant's youth (and related matters); deportation would materially and irrevocably worsen the applicant's position and could render any successful appeal nugatory; balancing the prospects of success against the consequences favored granting a discretionary stay pending the appeal, conditional on the applicant pursuing the appeal promptly.
20 Sept 2010

FIDELITY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V GREGORY ALLEN PILKINGTON CA391/2010

Citation

openlaw-70d3d019_b44a_44ec_963b_45f3ba9d4470.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's exercise of discretion: on the balance of convenience and on the facts (respondent had no income or cash reserves, faced losing secured assets and imminent ruin) limited mandatory interim payments were justified and protected by a $70,000 undertaking; fresh evidence application was declined and the appeal dismissed.
1 Oct 2009

VIACOM GLOBAL (NETHERLANDS) B.V. V SCENE 1 ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) AND ANOR CA CA600/2009

Citation

openlaw-c49b6f35_5ae3_4086_b6ef_f471046c4c46.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The stay application was dismissed because the applicant failed to satisfy the established criteria for a stay pending appeal—in particular insufficiently demonstrated prospects of success and the balance of convenience and receivership considerations weighed against granting a stay.
25 Feb 2009

GREYMOUTH GAS KAIMIRO LIMITED AND ORS V SWIFT ENERGY NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC AK CIV-2009-404-000977

Citation

openlaw-6608d728_2299_43a3_8833_f80bcd3ec05d.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held there was a serious question to be tried, Swift NZ had not met the objective requirement to disclose and demonstrate 'appropriate arrangements' for repayment in the changed financial circumstances, clause 3.4.2 did not prevent an injunction restricting how Swift NZ could direct payment under letter of credit 2, the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable loss favoured the plaintiffs, and therefore an interim injunction was granted requiring payment to be deposited into a specified New Zealand bank account pending further order.
21 Nov 2008

TE RAPA OUTLET CENTRE LIMITED V THE BASE TE RAPA LIMITED HC HAM CIV 2008-419-001428

Citation

openlaw-d0351174_6a51_43f4_adc2_68a3016c2dfa.pdf
Court

High Court

Although there is a serious question to be tried on interpretation of clause 2.8 and the expert evidence, the balance of convenience and risk of injustice (including likely significant loss to the defendant, the Mall project, anchor tenant and third parties) outweigh the plaintiff's risk; damages would likely be adequate for the plaintiff while may be inadequate for the defendant, therefore the interim injunction was refused.
31 Oct 2007

DB BREWERIES LIMITED V LION NATHAN LIMITED HC AK CIV-2007-404-006681

Citation

openlaw-72a11201_f038_4946_840b_250b0480af77.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court concluded that 'Summer Ale' is more likely than not a generic/descriptive term for a beer style; given the short interim period there is little real risk of irreparable confusion to the plaintiff, whereas an injunction would impose significant harm on the defendant because most product is already distributed; on balance of convenience the interim injunction was refused and the matter adjourned to a full hearing on 8 November 2007.