New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Public policy exception

Legal area

Court

18 Sept 2020

ALMARZOOQI v SALIH [2020] NZHC 2441

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2441
Court

High Court

Summary judgment dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish that the UAE court had the necessary in personam jurisdiction under New Zealand private international law to make and therefore to enforce the ancillary monetary orders against the defendant; other objections (natural justice, fraud, public policy) were considered and not found to justify enforcement, but the jurisdictional defect was dispositive.
7 Nov 2016

NEW ZEALAND BASING LIMITED V DAVID BROWN AND GLEN SYCAMORE [2016] NZCA 525 [4 November 2016]

Citation

[2016] NZCA 525
Court

Court of Appeal

The parties validly and bona fide chose Hong Kong law as the proper law of the employment contracts; s 238 ERA does not operate as an overriding mandatory rule to displace that choice in the absence of clear parliamentary intent to that effect; the public policy exception does not apply because enforcement of the Hong Kong law in the particular contracts would not shock the conscience or violate fundamental principles of justice in New Zealand; therefore New Zealand law (ERA) does not apply to defeat the agreed choice of Hong Kong law.
7 Apr 2016

KOREA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR TOMATO SAVINGS BANK CO LIMITED v PARK [2016] NZHC 602

Citation

[2016] NZHC 602
Court

High Court

The Korean District Court judgment was enforceable in New Zealand; the contractual 25% overdue interest rate is not contrary to New Zealand public policy in the commercial context and is recoverable; therefore pre-judgment and post-judgment interest are to be applied at the contract rates to the date of entry of judgment in New Zealand; plaintiff to submit a formal judgment for sealing using the cash sell KRW/NZD rate as at the date of this Court's judgment; costs awarded to plaintiff on a 2B basis; leave reserved to apply later for interest under the Judicature Act on notice.
13 May 2015

NEW ZEALAND BASING LIMITED V BROWN CA12/2015 [2015] NZCA 168

Citation

[2015] NZCA 168
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted because the case raises questions of law of general and public importance under s 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000: whether that Act can override the parties' chosen Hong Kong law and, if it does not, whether applying Hong Kong law would contravene New Zealand public policy. The Court will determine those legal questions on appeal.
24 Sept 2012

MCCULLOCH & ORS V QUINN & ORS HC AK CIV-2011-404-003508

Citation

openlaw-98ee3798_a033_4f50_b9e4_cbb97a804bbe.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was declined because applicants failed to identify an important question of law or real detriment sufficient to justify delay; under the Evidence Act without prejudice communications are protected absent a prima facie dishonest purpose or enabling of an offence and the facts did not meet that threshold, particularly as the settlement terms were disclosed and plaintiffs can pursue s174 and fiduciary claims without access to privileged negotiations.
4 Apr 2011

TSUGIO ABE AND EN-TOUT-CAS (FIJI) LTD V AZIM HC AK CIV 2010-404-3741

Citation

openlaw-8b5a1790_888e_4dac_a223_8ba7e5d81023.pdf
Court

High Court

Registration of the Fijian judgment was correctly registered and the application to set it aside is refused because the defendant failed to establish the narrow public policy or natural justice exceptions, had representation in Fiji, no appeal is pending or reasonably likely, and the statutory framework (including the 1940 Order in Council and High Court Rules Part 23) required registration once prescribed matters were proved.
27 Sept 2010

ROSS V ROSS CA CA259/06

Citation

openlaw-2010efbe_2a60_4364_9665_4b904dbed7d5.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment: the New York decision of 16 December 2003 was a final money judgment enforceable in New Zealand under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction; none of the narrow exceptions (public policy, natural justice, fraud) applied; the High Court had jurisdiction and was not required or entitled to adjust the quantum to reflect New Zealand tax treatment.

New Zealand Case Law

ALMARZOOQI v SALIH [2020] NZHC 2441

NEW ZEALAND BASING LIMITED V DAVID BROWN AND GLEN SYCAMORE [2016] NZCA 525 [4 November 2016]

KOREA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR TOMATO SAVINGS BANK CO LIMITED v PARK [2016] NZHC 602

NEW ZEALAND BASING LIMITED V BROWN CA12/2015 [2015] NZCA 168

MCCULLOCH & ORS V QUINN & ORS HC AK CIV-2011-404-003508

TSUGIO ABE AND EN-TOUT-CAS (FIJI) LTD V AZIM HC AK CIV 2010-404-3741

ROSS V ROSS CA CA259/06