New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Restraint of counsel

Legal area

Court

2 Sept 2020

YU v CHANDLER PROPERTIES LIMITED [2020] NZCA 384

Citation

[2020] NZCA 384
Court

Court of Appeal

The Deputy Registrar did not err in extending time by four working days because the material did not establish that the appellant knowingly made false statements about her awareness of the judgment; the restraint application failed because the affidavits of the respondent's solicitors were predominantly documentary and factual (not contentious) and, while one solicitor's affidavit was contentious, it related to interlocutory processes and did not justify an order restraining Rennie Cox from acting.
4 May 2020

LANDMARK PROPERTY HOLDINGS LIMITED v SHEN EMPIRE LIMITED [2020] NZHC 893

Citation

[2020] NZHC 893
Court

High Court

Because a body corporate owes an overarching duty to treat unit holders even‑handedly and therefore cannot share the requisite community of interest with individual unit holders on the disputed covenant/levy issues, Rainey Law and Tim Rainey, acting for the body corporate and for other defendants without court leave, were ineligible to continue acting for those other defendants under High Court Rule 1.20(2) and professional conduct rules; the court therefore restrained them from acting for any defendants in the proceeding.
26 Mar 2019

MITCHELL v MITCHELL [2019] NZHC 567

Citation

[2019] NZHC 567
Court

High Court

The Court declined a 25% uplift and found the Assets Trust's claimed costs excessive; reduced allowances for case management attendance to 20% for one conference, adjusted affidavit preparation to one full day under Item 22, and declined additional complexity/preparation allowances, resulting in an award of $9,165.30 plus $1,593 disbursements; Mr Staite was held liable as a plaintiff because he participated in and supported opposition to the restraint application and raised objections only after adverse rulings.
27 Jun 2013

GUARDIAN RETAIL HOLDINGS LTD v BUDDLE FINDLAY [2013] NZHC 1582

Citation

(2013) 14 NZPR 664
Court

High Court

Prior to ratification there was a real conflict between the Body Corporate and committee members, the Body Corporate lacked adequate independent advice and accurate information at the EGM, and Buddle Findlay's advice is sufficiently 'in issue' to compromise independence; accordingly Buddle Findlay was restrained from acting and the Body Corporate restrained from funding the committee members pending determination of the substantive proceedings because there is a serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience favoured restraint.

New Zealand Case Law

YU v CHANDLER PROPERTIES LIMITED [2020] NZCA 384

LANDMARK PROPERTY HOLDINGS LIMITED v SHEN EMPIRE LIMITED [2020] NZHC 893

MITCHELL v MITCHELL [2019] NZHC 567

GUARDIAN RETAIL HOLDINGS LTD v BUDDLE FINDLAY [2013] NZHC 1582