18 Oct 2023
Because there was an identifiable fund likely to be in dispute, credible evidential grounds to suspect breach of trustee duties and possible undue influence, urgency with imminent settlement and a short preservation period, the court properly exercised its discretion to grant a without‑notice preservation order for two months while preserving respondents' ability to apply to set aside.
8 Apr 2022
Grant preservation because applicant demonstrated a prima facie claim to an interest in the Vehicles and there were good reasons to preserve them: the defendant's undertaking did not bind third parties; an unexplained and unusual PPSR financing statement raised real concerns; the Vehicles were insured in the plaintiff's name with unknown compliance; and custody/storage was unclear, creating a real risk to the plaintiff's interests; accordingly the Vehicles must be surrendered to and held by the plaintiff (liquidators) pending further order.
1 Jul 2021
Constable lacked authority to execute the investor agreement because his appointment was defective and procured without the lawful director's consent; s158 does not protect the appointment where there was no proper power and good faith is absent; plaintiffs have a good arguable case for proprietary remedies (constructive trust and money paid under mistake) and relief under s43 FTA; there is an identifiable fund ($260,000) and a real risk of dissipation, therefore freezing and preservation orders are justified.
5 Nov 2019
The court granted preservation orders requiring the US$1.32 million to be paid into court relying on NPE's undertaking as to damages because the sum was an identifiable fund susceptible to a restitutionary claim, there was a meaningful risk of dissipation (reinforced by the bank suspension), and interim preservation was justified under High Court Rules r7.55; subsidiary information order was refused and costs reserved.
7 Feb 2019
Interlocutory costs were to be decided now under r 14.8; NZMA was entitled to a modest costs award because it had consented only subject to a proviso and was put to unnecessary preparation by the applicants' conduct and misunderstanding; accordingly $1,500 awarded to NZMA and otherwise costs lie where they fall as to the first respondents.
27 Nov 2018
The court granted interim ex parte orders restraining the defendants from modifying or destroying specified documents and electronic materials because there was a serious case of unauthorised use and the balance of convenience favoured preservation, but refused to order forensic imaging ex parte due to its intrusive nature and the need to give defendants an opportunity to oppose; an urgent inter partes hearing was ordered to decide imaging and defendants were given leave to apply to set aside the orders on 24 hours' notice.
29 May 2018
The statement of claim was struck out because the declarations sought relate to the Treaty settlement negotiation and pre-legislative process and are non-justiciable; the Court will not grant declarations that would intrude into executive or parliamentary functions, and the interlocutory preservation orders cannot be made because no settlement funds have been paid and the defendants are not the intended recipients.
27 Apr 2018
The High Court possesses an inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings, including to protect inferior courts from contempt, but it is inappropriate to exercise that power to stay an applicant's judicial review where the stay would operate as leverage to deny or delay access to justice and judicial review rights; therefore the Assignee's application for a stay to compel compliance with District Court preservation orders was dismissed.
3 Jul 2017
The Court held that the receivers had a proper claim under s12 to access electronic devices likely containing company material, that urgency justified hearing the originating application without notice, and that a preservation order for forensic copying was necessary to prevent destruction or alteration of evidence and to preserve the receivers' position; accordingly orders were made requiring the respondent to produce specified devices for forensic copying and reserving leave for further inspection orders.
19 Aug 2013
The Family Court lacked jurisdiction to order the direct payment of relationship property to a third party (the IRD) under s25(3)/s33 PRA; because the payment had already been made and could not be recovered, the High Court, exercising appellate powers under s76 District Courts Act as applied to appeals under s39 PRA, must declare that the payment vested in Mr N as an interim distribution under s25(3).