New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Solicitors' undertaking

Legal area

Court

30 Nov 2022

WRIGHT ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED v MARCHI [2022] NZHC 3180

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3180
Court

High Court

The applicant failed to prove the undertaking's purpose was limited to facilitating a completed settlement or that that purpose has been frustrated; because the respondent's competing relationship property claim to the trust assets and sale proceeds remains live and contested, the undertaking still serves to preserve the status quo and the solicitors cannot be discharged; consequently the application to release the undertaking and authorise payment was declined.
1 Apr 2010

LIMIN YANG AND LIU (JASMINE) YANG V PAUL YU PO CHEN HC AK CIV-2007-404-1751

Citation

openlaw-740f00aa_520d_429b_89ce_6da3d4c61a1f.pdf
Court

High Court

The court refused to dissolve the solicitors' undertaking because funds held on undertaking are distinct from satisfaction of a judgment and dissolving the undertaking would prejudice the defendant's ability to pursue security for costs and disturb the status quo immediately before a substantive hearing; the contempt application against the defendant was adjourned because late affidavits raised genuine factual disputes that require trial resolution; Heard Park Limited was in contempt because it omitted documents from its non-party discovery list that were in the control of its solicitors, and…
31 Aug 2009

AKV2 LIMITED V AUCKLAND CONCRETE HOMES LIMITED HC AK CIV 2008-404-005972

Citation

openlaw-83da1904_4629_44b4_8638_1517a571072a.pdf
Court

High Court

Even if the respondent had an arguable caveatable interest, it was unreasonable to maintain the caveat after the applicant offered to lodge the disputed sum in an interest bearing trust account and after warning of likely costs; accordingly costs and disbursements were awarded to the applicant and the solicitors' undertaking was released allowing funds to be paid to the applicant.
20 Jun 2008

WWW.AIR2THERE.COM V MARLBOROUGH AIRPORT LIMITED HC BLE CIV 2008 406 109

Citation

openlaw-d0a3d1d7_2aef_4836_ab99_791526cba5b1.pdf
Court

High Court

The court accepted the applicant had raised an arguable state of solvency through evidence of shareholder capital support and a trust deposit and, to protect the respondent, granted a stay of the statutory demand on conditions (noting s290 principles) including an unconditional solicitors' undertaking to hold the funds, strict compliance with timetabling, restriction on seeking a stay of first instance liability, and interest to run from the date of the order.
16 Nov 2006

MEAKER V NEWDICK AND ROBINSON HC AK CIV-2006-405-3428

Citation

openlaw-d3707392_2b31_4344_8273_355a720d38ce.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because there are genuine, complex factual disputes about the meaning of the solicitors' undertaking, the characterization and destination of the $100,000 payment, and the plaintiff's role; defendants have raised a tenable defence so the plaintiff has not shown there is no real question to be tried.

New Zealand Case Law

WRIGHT ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED v MARCHI [2022] NZHC 3180

LIMIN YANG AND LIU (JASMINE) YANG V PAUL YU PO CHEN HC AK CIV-2007-404-1751

AKV2 LIMITED V AUCKLAND CONCRETE HOMES LIMITED HC AK CIV 2008-404-005972

WWW.AIR2THERE.COM V MARLBOROUGH AIRPORT LIMITED HC BLE CIV 2008 406 109

MEAKER V NEWDICK AND ROBINSON HC AK CIV-2006-405-3428