New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay of proceeding

Legal area

Court

13 May 2022

SKYHORSE TRANSPORT LIMITED v GREENHILL HOME LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1034

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1034
Court

High Court

The stay was not lifted because there remained a genuine and substantial dispute about the indebtedness that displaced the statutory-demand presumption; the defendant had taken steps to secure the disputed funds in trust and had proposed binding dispute-resolution options; the plaintiff failed to prove insolvency on the evidence so the liquidation application was dismissed.
9 Dec 2021

QINGDAO ZOONO BIOTECH COMPANY LIMITED v ZOONO LIMITED [2021] NZHC 3343

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3343
Court

High Court

Plaintiff's complete inactivity for a year and a half, including breaches of court-ordered security for costs and costs, with no credible explanation and no engagement or opposition, amounted to inordinate and inexcusable delay causing serious prejudice; in the interests of justice the claim must be dismissed under r15.2.
3 Dec 2020

POWELL v K2 INVESTMENT GROUP LTD [2020] NZHC 3181

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3181
Court

High Court

Leave under r 7.7 was refused because defendants failed to satisfy the three statutory hurdles: they did not show it was in the interests of justice to grant leave, they failed to explain or justify the inordinate delay and risk of prejudice, and granting leave would likely cause significant delay and disruption to trial preparation; additionally the application was poorly conceived (seeking an excessive, retrospective style security) and defendants had long been aware of the plaintiff's financial position, so the balance of convenience and discretionary factors did not favour granting leave.
23 Mar 2018

MORRELL v WORLD SOLAR LIMITED [2018] NZHC 518

Citation

[2018] NZHC 518
Court

High Court

Threshold under r 5.45 was established by the plaintiff's overseas residence and evidence of financial difficulty; exercising the discretionary balancing test, the court ordered a single lump sum security of $16,500 (about 75% of a 2B costs estimate) to address enforcement difficulty if defendant succeeded and to avoid prematurely excluding a genuine claim; the proceeding is stayed until security is given; no costs awarded for the interlocutory application because the defendant's failure to give prior notice made the application an unnecessary step under r 14.7.
17 Jun 2014

SHAW v GLOBE HOLDINGS LTD [2014] NZHC 1360

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1360
Court

High Court

Globe failed to establish a serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience favoured allowing the statutory demand process to continue: the invoices were properly rendered to Globe under the engagement letter, Globe's alleged offset (a claim by related company Seaside for GST penalties) was tenuous, unpleaded and unsupported by evidence of negligence or steps taken to bring the related claims, and the modest quantum meant there was insufficient prejudice to justify a stay or restraint on advertising.
8 Apr 2014

SKELTON v Z487 LIMITED [2014] NZHC 707

Citation

[2014] NZHC 707
Court

High Court

The Court reached a preliminary conclusion that New Zealand is the more appropriate forum to determine the overall dispute because the issues overlap and New Zealand courts can determine whether breaches of the 2008 agreement justified termination of the 2010 agreement and because there is a genuine dispute over the 2008 agreement's choice of forum clause; however s25(1)(a) presently requires the Court to stay any New Zealand claims that seek declarations or damages arising solely under the 2008 agreement unless the Australian court declines jurisdiction or an exception to s25 applies.
29 May 2007

WALLACE V UNDERHILL HC HAM CIV 2006-419-1405

Citation

openlaw-cb52c2a5_a347_4e4e_951e_6c5958fc227e.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff met the impecuniosity threshold under r 60 and the pleadings disclosed sufficient problematic aspects with no countervailing circumstances; exercising the court's discretion, security for costs of $10,000 was necessary to protect the defendant and the proceeding was stayed until that security was paid, with costs of the application awarded to the defendant on a 2B basis.

New Zealand Case Law

SKYHORSE TRANSPORT LIMITED v GREENHILL HOME LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1034

QINGDAO ZOONO BIOTECH COMPANY LIMITED v ZOONO LIMITED [2021] NZHC 3343

POWELL v K2 INVESTMENT GROUP LTD [2020] NZHC 3181

MORRELL v WORLD SOLAR LIMITED [2018] NZHC 518

SHAW v GLOBE HOLDINGS LTD [2014] NZHC 1360

SKELTON v Z487 LIMITED [2014] NZHC 707

WALLACE V UNDERHILL HC HAM CIV 2006-419-1405