New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Status quo

Legal area

Court

13 Aug 2020

INTELLIHUB LTD v GENESIS ENERGY LTD [2020] NZCA 344

Citation

[2020] NZCA 344
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held the High Court applied the correct interim injunction test, concluded Intellihub's unlawful means tort claim was not tenable on the pleaded facts (essential elements could not be seriously argued), and that although there was a serious question to be tried on the breach of contract claim the balance of convenience and overall justice weighed against granting an interim injunction; appeal dismissed and leave to adduce further evidence granted.
29 Jun 2020

CHRISTENSEN v GORDON [2020] NZHC 1486

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1486
Court

High Court

There is a serious question to be tried that Mr Gordon's proposed purchase of AutexPSL may breach the clause 7.3 restraint and that confidential information was disclosed; however, the claim against the second defendant as pleaded does not establish inducement and an interim injunction preventing the purchase is refused because overall justice and the balance of convenience favor the defendants as damages are likely to be an adequate and quantifiable remedy (profits attributable and discoverable). A conditional interim restraining order limited to confidential information was granted to take…
9 Oct 2018

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF AUCKLAND v BOYNTON [2018] NZHC 2636

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2636
Court

High Court

The Bishop, as registered proprietor, has a clear proprietary right to possession; there is a serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience and overall justice favour granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction because of safety risks, damage, intimidation, inadequacy of damages and the need to preserve the status quo.
24 Jun 2016

THOMSON AND MARTIN v DORCHESTER APARTMENTS LTD [2016] NZHC 1398

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1398
Court

High Court

Given the interim judge left costs at large and considering the parties' conduct regarding the status quo and the breach of the rules, indemnity costs were not justified; on the application before this Court the defendant is entitled to 2B costs and reasonable disbursements to be quantified by the Registrar if necessary.
21 Apr 2016

MANSFIELD v BILKEY & Ors [2016] NZHC 752

Citation

[2016] NZHC 752
Court

High Court

Although the plaintiff established an arguable case based on historical deeds and survey evidence, the balance of convenience and overall justice required refusal of the interim injunction because damages would be an adequate remedy for the limited interlocutory period, the defendants have an arguable defence supported by long usage and the physical situation, the injunction would cause greater overall disruption and practical enforcement difficulties, and trial could be heard in the near term.
7 Aug 2015

PROPELLOR PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LIMITED v TREVOR WAYNE MOORE [2015] NZCA 357 [7 August 2015]

Citation

[2015] NZCA 357
Court

Court of Appeal

Because the respondent gave enforceable undertakings that substantially covered non-solicitation and confidentiality during the restraint period, there was no evidence of irreparable or unquantifiable loss to the appellant, and the respondent would suffer immediate and difficult-to-compensate hardship if restrained, the balance of convenience favoured the respondent and the interim injunction was correctly refused; the appellant's challenge fails and the appeal is dismissed.
27 May 2014

MONACO MANAGEMENT LIMITED v HANDY 4 LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1143

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1143
Court

High Court

The Court granted an interim injunction because Monaco demonstrated an arguable claim under s 261 and the balance of convenience required protection of the status quo pending resolution; accordingly defendants (other than the tenth defendants) are restrained from re‑entering the units until these proceedings are determined or discontinued.
11 Nov 2013

CHOI v HONG [2013] NZHC 2973

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2973
Court

High Court

The Court found the plaintiff established a serious issue to be tried based on the 10 August 2012 agreement which obliged retransfers of shares where no S&P was signed or settled by the specified dates; the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff because the defendant was overseas and unlikely to satisfy a future judgment while the plaintiff had purchased the first mortgage (in excess of $600,000) providing substantial security, so an interim injunction preventing the defendant dealing with the shares and property was necessary to preserve the plaintiff's position.
18 Dec 2012

CAM V SRM HC AK CIV-2012-404-6771

Citation

openlaw-9d883b15_0c5d_41e4_ab68_a58a8b3ae7dc.pdf
Court

High Court

Stay refused because continuation of contact for three months had become the status quo, there was no persuasive evidence that the contact was unsafe or that the Family Court had erred on welfare grounds, refusal of a stay would not render the appeal nugatory, the children's clear wishes and potential disruption from suspending contact outweighed procedural defects alleged.
31 Oct 2012

NR v MR HC WN CIV-2012-485-1359

Citation

openlaw-4fc9d23f_c100_4664_9c77_bf6257539b71.pdf
Court

High Court

Grandmother was the established primary caregiver and relocation preserved continuity of primary caregiving; disruption to relationships with mother and half-brother was moderate but justified by stability and the child's positive schooling prospects and continuity with primary caregiver; therefore relocation was in the child's best interests and the appeal is dismissed.