9 Sept 2022
The settlement agreement contained an enforceable indemnity costs clause; the defendant incurred reasonable fees and disbursements in enforcing the settlement (all post-dating proceedings); accordingly the defendant is entitled to recover indemnity costs of $22,844.53 and the plaintiffs' inability to pay does not negate that entitlement.
1 Apr 2022
The application for a stay pending appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to provide security or pay the settlement sums as agreed, their prospects of success on appeal were poor given the absence of an evidential foundation for a compensable cross-claim, and the balance of convenience did not justify a stay; potential bankruptcy of individuals did not render the appeal nugatory as other parties or the Official Assignee could pursue the appeal.
5 Oct 2021
The written settlement agreement created enforceable payment and security obligations; the defendants failed to establish a reasonably arguable, quantified set-off based on alleged pre-contractual misrepresentation because any loss was speculative and unquantified and the hotel had not operated, and the plaintiff's technical failure to discontinue did not disentitle it to relief; accordingly summary judgment as to liability for unpaid instalments and as to the obligation to grant a mortgage was entered, with limited aspects left for further application and one security order (GSA) declined as…
18 Nov 2019
Plaintiffs showed an arguable case and that balance of convenience favoured limited interim relief because they would suffer significant prejudice in imminent sales and in preparing a mating plan; damages would be inadequate for plaintiffs but adequate for defendant; accordingly the court granted a tailored interim injunction requiring the defendant to cause two-generation ASBV/pedigree data for rams proposed for sale to be publicly available and to provide full LambPlan data confidentially to plaintiff-nominated breeding consultant for mating purposes, and permitted use of evidence/discovery…
12 Aug 2019
Failure by Ms Carrim to procure the assignment required by clause 2(b) within the agreed timeframe constituted a breach of the settlement agreement; because no completed assignment for a sum certain existed she could not claim credit and remained liable for the residual amount, entitling the Official Assignee to judgment on the admission together with interest and costs.
6 Nov 2018
An Associate Judge had jurisdiction to make an order enforcing the parties' settlement by directing the trustees to sell the Waipu land to Mr Duncan for $1,875,000, but did not have jurisdiction to grant the supplementary pt 5 Trustee Act vesting order sought; any such vesting order requires a formal application to a High Court judge supported by affidavit evidence.
29 Aug 2013
Summary judgment was dismissed because the defendants have arguable counterclaims and set-offs (undelivered chattels and alleged misappropriation from the No 2 Trust) which, together with accrued interest, may exceed the plaintiff's claimed balance, and there are material factual disputes and credibility issues that require a trial.
20 Mar 2012
The Court held the mediated settlement was reached voluntarily with legal representation and opportunity for private consultation and reflection; the alleged pressure, trauma, post‑mediation advice and confidentiality concerns did not amount to vitiating conduct sufficient to set aside the agreement; accordingly the settlement was binding and enforceable and judgment was entered for the plaintiff against Mrs Sheryl Janette Monk for her agreed contribution with interest and costs.
29 Aug 2011
Leave to appeal was refused because the application did not raise any question of law of general or public importance but instead sought to relitigate collateral factual issues; the Employment Court correctly found the discontinuance valid and authorized and that non-reinstatement would not produce a miscarriage of justice.
26 Jul 2011
Section 57(3)(b) cannot be contracted out of by a mediation confidentiality clause so as to prevent admissibility of mediation communications necessary to prove existence of a settlement agreement; the mediation agreement in issue did not unambiguously preclude an oral binding settlement and, in any event, parties can vary or waive such requirements during mediation; accordingly evidence of mediation is admissible to decide whether a binding oral settlement was reached, and the specified affidavit material may be adduced.