New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proof of foreign law

Legal area

Court

20 Nov 2020

GUANGZHOU DONGJIANG PETROLEUM SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED v KANG [2020] NZHC 3068

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3068
Court

High Court

Defendant failed to establish any arguable defence: there was no breach of natural justice because he had notice and represented by counsel who participated and obtained an adjournment; his allegation of bribery/corruption was insufficiently particularised and unsupported by cogent evidence to meet the heightened prima facie standard required to defeat enforcement for fraud or public policy; accordingly plaintiff's summary judgment application succeeded and judgment is entered for the RMB amounts, interest and costs.
27 Apr 2018

BURMESTER v BURMESTER [2018] NZHC 822

Citation

[2018] NZHC 822
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify questions of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument of sufficient public or private importance to justify a second appeal; most contested matters were factual or discretionary, the applicant failed to prove German law with required evidence, and many orders were justified by the applicant's obstructive conduct, so there was no realistic prospect of benefit from further appeal.
11 Jul 2007

ANQUANDAH AND ANOR V ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NZ HC AK CIV 2004-404-7230

Citation

openlaw-b0215d66_4f6e_4a19_bfda_a9ccc5b91e3f.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for a declaratory judgment was refused because the applicants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the child had been validly adopted under Ghanaian law and that the statutory requirements of s 17(2) were met; the Ghanaian court order was declaratory/confirmatory and not an adoption order capable of invoking the s 17(2A) evidentiary presumption, and material defects (notably the absence of the natural mother's consent and multiple documentary inconsistencies) undermined proof of a lawful customary adoption.
18 Jun 2003

SKYE COURT PTY LTD V KEITH RICHARD MASON AND GLENYS MARGARET MASON CA CA6/03

Citation

openlaw-2f442b8a_cb3d_43db_a5cf_7e985783072c.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court's refusal to strike out because on the pleaded facts and given the possibility of exceptions (eg continuing misrepresentation or collusion) and unresolved factual disputes about accrual under Australian law, it was not plain and clear that the claim was time barred and therefore not a proper case for strike out at interlocutory stage.

New Zealand Case Law

GUANGZHOU DONGJIANG PETROLEUM SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED v KANG [2020] NZHC 3068

BURMESTER v BURMESTER [2018] NZHC 822

ANQUANDAH AND ANOR V ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NZ HC AK CIV 2004-404-7230

SKYE COURT PTY LTD V KEITH RICHARD MASON AND GLENYS MARGARET MASON CA CA6/03