New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sequestration

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2023

WHIMP AND ANOR v DUGDALE AND OTHERS [2023] NZHC 2018

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2018
Court

High Court

Plaintiffs' application was declined because the court found plaintiffs had successfully enforced the interim order by obtaining payment by defendants into solicitors' trust accounts equivalent to the reduction in equity ($103,080.45), and under s16(3)(a) the court must not proceed further; additionally, on the evidence the court found beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Dugdale knowingly breached the order but did not proceed to impose sanctions because enforcement had been achieved; actual knowledge is required for s16(3)(b)(iii).
19 Oct 2020

PIHEMA v PIHEMA [2020] NZHC 2749

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2749
Court

High Court

The application for arrest and sequestration was declined because the court could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent, without reasonable cause, knowingly failed to comply with the injunction; accordingly the criminal standard required by s16(3)(b)(iii) was not met and arrest was not an appropriate or proportionate remedy, and no order could be made against the non-party partner.
8 Jun 2020

WAIMUMU ROAD LTD v MOASE HOLDINGS LTD [2020] NZHC 1258

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1258
Court

High Court

Given the prior consent order for specific performance, service of s 319 notice, the respondent's recalcitrance and delay, and the applicant's demonstrated urgency and minimal-intrusion programme, it was just and equitable to grant relief under s 320 in the terms of the s 319 notice (including extended hours) while declining sequestration and contempt relief.
13 Dec 2016

ZHANG v KING DAVID INVESTMENTS LTD (IN LIQ) & ANOR [2016] NZHC 3018

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3018
Court

High Court

The consent orders were valid and will not be set aside; Hsiang-Fen Ying deliberately breached the clear consent order by selling the property and therefore committed civil contempt; Jinyue Young did not personally commit contempt though his conduct raises professional concerns; appropriate relief is monetary compensation to the plaintiff from funds paid into Court, variation of the consent orders to remove the transfer obligation, discharge of an irrelevant freezing order, indemnity costs and a pecuniary penalty of NZD 10,000 on Ying with a 20-day imprisonment contingency if unpaid.
28 Sept 2016

PETER REYNOLDS MECHANICAL LTD TRADING AS THE ITALIAN JOB SERVICE CENTRE v JAMES DENYER, LABOUR INSPECTOR [2016] NZCA 464

Citation

[2016] NZCA 464
Court

Court of Appeal

The Employment Court (and thus Court of Appeal on review) has jurisdiction under the plain wording of s140(6) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 to impose a fine for non-compliance with a compliance order even where the underlying order is monetary; however the s140(6) powers are remedial and punitive and must be exercised sparingly and proportionately with primary focus on securing compliance and considering culpability, duration of default, remedial steps taken, financial circumstances and deterrence - on the facts the $5,500 fine was manifestly excessive and was reduced to $750.
20 Oct 2011

SHAWYER V THOW HC INV CIV-2010-425-000116

Citation

openlaw-d3fe2dc6_e97c_4979_b904_beb3b1b15955.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent deliberately and flagrantly disobeyed the judgment and subsequent orders, establishing civil contempt; because the respondent had been adjudicated bankrupt and assets vested in the Official Assignee sequestration was impractical, so the appropriate remedy was an order for indemnity (solicitor/client) costs rather than sequestration, imprisonment or fine.
13 Oct 2009

TAWANUI DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED V D M HARNETT AND J C MALCOLM AND ANOR HC PMN CIV 2008-454-949

Citation

openlaw-16d01b80_39f0_440c_bbce_4f175a034344.pdf
Court

High Court

Under the amended High Court Rules the Court lacked jurisdiction to grant a writ of sequestration because the specific performance decree was in substance an order for payment of a sum of money; therefore the application for sequestration was refused.
17 Mar 2009

TAKITIMU ESTATE LTD V M C DICKSON HC INV CIV 2008-425-000585

Citation

openlaw-ecb6d706_52fa_45a0_9c0d_2cd32c78cc4b.pdf
Court

High Court

An order for specific performance is a final order but not necessarily a final order for any amount under s 17(1)(a); where purchaser and vendor obligations remain inter-dependent and no conveyance has occurred the creditor has not obtained a final order for a sum due and payable and therefore issuance of bankruptcy notices was not supported; accordingly the bankruptcy notices were set aside.
8 Dec 2006

ASH ROAD INVESTMENTS LTD V MCLEAN TOWER LTD HC AK CIV-2006-404-3985

Citation

openlaw-a917a8cc_0030_4d68_ab6e_e61a2fa6cf88.pdf
Court

High Court

The application is dismissed: the transfer of apartments purged any contempt relating to non-transfer and further enquiry is unnecessary; Begley was not in contempt for non-payment of penalty interest because he lacked means and did not act wilfully, but his failure to produce evidence and conduct justified an award of indemnity/solicitor–client costs against him.
8 Aug 2006

WHITE, ERIWATA AND ERIWATA V ERIWATA HC NWP CIV 2006 443 302

Citation

openlaw-772f0fe6_a051_4914_bd88_f1a04952bd40.pdf
Court

High Court

The respondent is in contempt of the Maori Land Court injunction; under s85(2) the injunction was properly transmitted and is enforceable by the High Court; the appropriate enforcement remedy is a writ of possession authorising ejection and seizure of chattels, to lie unexecuted for two weeks to allow compliance; costs follow the successful enforcement application.