New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Transfer of registry

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2018

CRAIG v WILLIAMS [2018] NZHC 2520

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2520
Court

High Court

Portions of the plaintiff's claim that seek to re‑litigate the issue that plaintiff sexually harassed the alleged complainant were struck out as an abuse of process/issue estoppel because that issue was finally determined against him in prior related litigation; late service alone did not justify striking out remaining claims where filing was within limitation period and delay was not inordinate or unexplained; defendant's application for security for costs was declined for lack of evidence that plaintiff could not meet a costs award; transfer to Wellington was refused because no satisfactory…
28 Sept 2016

M J DAISLEY and SDD LIMITED v ARK CONTRACTORS LIMITED, P G KELLER and K E KELLER and THOMSON LAW [2016] NZHC 2300

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2300
Court

High Court

Security for costs was ordered because the plaintiff's limited and unsubstantiated financial evidence, outstanding judgment against him, lack of demonstrable income and uncertain value of claimed Ark shareholding showed he was likely unable to pay costs; accordingly the court ordered specific security payments and stayed the proceedings until paid; the proceeding was transferred to the Whangarei Registry under HCR 5.1 because Ark was controlled and managed from Whangarei and most parties and witnesses are located there; the proceeding is to be case managed with CIV 2016-488-041 and heard sequ…
29 Apr 2014

R T VINCENT LIMITED v WATTS & HUGHES CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2014] NZHC 847 _x000b_

Citation

[2014] NZHC 847
Court

High Court

The Court declined both applications: transfer was refused because Auckland was the proper registry and the defendant failed to show Rotorua would be more convenient; stay to arbitration was refused because the defendant failed to establish a genuine/arguable dispute that falls within an operative arbitration agreement (uncertainty whether NZS 3910:2003 applied to the labour only works) and had, by its conduct in seeking transfer for convenience after fixture allocation, effectively conceded jurisdiction making any arbitration agreement inoperative; costs awarded to plaintiff on a 2B basis.
20 Sept 2012

INDEPENDENT LIQUOR (NZ) LTD V HANSSEN HC AK CIV-2012-404-4376

Citation

openlaw-f16684af_59a2_4a34_8986_a3bbbac46900.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that the originating application was filed in the wrong registry and ordered transfer to the Dunedin Registry because the first-named respondent's registered office is in Dunedin and the substantive dispute (formation/execution of the alleged contract) is likely to have arisen in Dunedin; service of the statutory demand itself does not constitute the relevant cause of action for registry purposes.
9 Mar 2007

BURMEISTER V O'BRIEN AND ORS HC TAU CIV 2005-470-396

Citation

openlaw-21a5a2a7_d3f1_4f94_af64_01b5c2ff9300.pdf
Court

High Court

Transfer to the Auckland registry is refused to prevent registry shopping; the matter is to remain in the Rotorua Registry and any application for enlargement of time will be dealt with together with any review application with specified filing timetables and a telephone conference to review progress.

New Zealand Case Law

CRAIG v WILLIAMS [2018] NZHC 2520

M J DAISLEY and SDD LIMITED v ARK CONTRACTORS LIMITED, P G KELLER and K E KELLER and THOMSON LAW [2016] NZHC 2300

R T VINCENT LIMITED v WATTS & HUGHES CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2014] NZHC 847 _x000b_

INDEPENDENT LIQUOR (NZ) LTD V HANSSEN HC AK CIV-2012-404-4376

BURMEISTER V O'BRIEN AND ORS HC TAU CIV 2005-470-396