New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Rescission of interlocutory order

Legal area

Court

12 Oct 2021

BAIGENT [2021] NZHC 2729

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2729
Court

High Court

The rescission application was declined because the earlier Judge's decision was not shown to be wrong; the distinction between an easement being 'no longer of practical effect' and 'redundant' was immaterial, and s316(3) requires service on affected persons except where the court directs otherwise, so extinguishing a property right without notice was inappropriate in the circumstances.
1 Jun 2010

TEAM CLAVEL MOTORSPORT V NEIL ALLPORT MOTORSPORTS LTD HC AK CIV 2010-404-2823

Citation

openlaw-957a233d_8479_4818_9107_82f1127841f2.pdf
Court

High Court

Application to rescind the spent ex parte orders under r 7.49 was dismissed; the Court will ordinarily leave contested questions about the propriety of a spent interlocutory order for trial and remedies under the plaintiff's undertaking, and on the evidence before the Court it could not be said the Judge was misled or that the injunction was wrongly granted; order restraining defendant from using the vehicle without plaintiff's consent remains in effect and costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a 2B basis.