New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Undertaking to court

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 2023

FURSDON v BRIAN BARCLAY TRUSTEE LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3422

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3422
Court

High Court

The court ordered sale by public tender and directed net proceeds be distributed 57% to the plaintiff and 43% to the second defendant (with the latter's share first applied to repay the outstanding mortgage) because the partnership agreement and the plaintiff's sworn concession fixed the parties' shares, there was no evidence of risk of dissipation to justify withholding funds, and the plaintiff's undertaking provided adequate protection pending Family Court proceedings.
28 Jul 2017

Tana v Housing New Zealand [2017] NZHC 1768

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1768
Court

High Court

Although the District Court was entitled to refuse a stay because the appeal had very little prospect of success, the High Court allowed the appeal and granted a conditional stay because new material not before the District Court (the appellant's binding undertaking and an earlier available hearing date) changed the balance of justice; the stay was granted subject to strict filing deadlines and conduct conditions.
18 Feb 2016

BLOMFIELD v SLATER [2016] NZHC 210

Citation

(2016) 23 PRNZ 153
Court

High Court

The first article continued to publish pejorative material concerning the plaintiff and breached both the undertaking and a prior court order; that breach warranted contempt finding and a fine of $1,500. Paragraphs in three later articles referring to the plaintiff without naming him were reckless breaches warranting removal orders but not sufficiently serious or proven wilful conduct to constitute contempt or attract additional penalty.
24 Nov 2010

SIEMER V THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR NEW ZEALAND CA CA126/2010

Citation

openlaw-a3968266_b386_4e80_baca_931b9934f98f.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the Solicitor-General had achieved the purpose of the contempt application by securing removal of the material and a personal undertaking, the appellant repeatedly failed in interlocutory applications and disobeyed court orders, and those circumstances fall within High Court Rules r14.6(4)(a) and (b) (and para (f)) justifying an award of indemnity costs; the judge was entitled to inquire into compliance and exhibited no bias.
14 Apr 2010

PILKINGTON V FIDELITY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED HC WN CIV-2007-485-2270

Citation

openlaw-38e31937_8c8a_49f2_bb78_63a7de104922.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for a mandatory interim injunction was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to make full and honest disclosure and did not satisfy the court that failure to order continued payments would cause immediate and complete financial ruin; given the fungible nature of money and adequacy of damages, the balance of convenience did not justify the rare remedy sought.
20 Apr 2009

NGAI TAHU TOURISM LIMITED AND ANOR V QUEENSTOWN WATER TAXIS LIMITED HC INV CIV-2008-425-000624

Citation

openlaw-b564dece_a083_4be1_8103_e02250a7d36b.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the defendant only gave its undertaking after proceedings were filed and after the court indicated it was minded to grant the relief, and because the defendant had effectively called the plaintiffs' bluff thereby putting them to unnecessary expense, an award of costs was appropriate; the High Court was the proper forum in the circumstances and costs of $9,380 were awarded to the plaintiffs.
9 Oct 2007

ANGLESEA MEDICAL PROPERTIES LTD V BRAEMAR HOSPITAL LTD HC HAM CIV 2006-419-1492

Citation

openlaw-0872f2a1_35a8_48e8_8432_60a0dfc4c1ab.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held Anglesea acted reasonably and with urgency in commencing interlocutory proceedings given expert and Council evidence indicating Building Act non-compliance; r 476 did not apply to discontinuance of the interlocutory application and the undertaking was discharged; clause 19.2(b) (requiring the lessee to pay the lessor's "costs, expenses and disbursements (including legal costs)") entitled Anglesea to solicitor/client (indemnity) costs which were objectively reasonable and payable, and interest under clause 16.5 was payable on demanded costs.

New Zealand Case Law

FURSDON v BRIAN BARCLAY TRUSTEE LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3422

Tana v Housing New Zealand [2017] NZHC 1768

BLOMFIELD v SLATER [2016] NZHC 210

SIEMER V THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR NEW ZEALAND CA CA126/2010

PILKINGTON V FIDELITY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED HC WN CIV-2007-485-2270

NGAI TAHU TOURISM LIMITED AND ANOR V QUEENSTOWN WATER TAXIS LIMITED HC INV CIV-2008-425-000624

ANGLESEA MEDICAL PROPERTIES LTD V BRAEMAR HOSPITAL LTD HC HAM CIV 2006-419-1492