New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Variation of interlocutory order

Legal area

Court

14 Nov 2016

NSK LIMITED & ANOR v GENERAL EQUIPMENT CO LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2721

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2721
Court

High Court

Because the order varying the 28 June 2016 judgment was materially premised on incorrect evidence (the assertion Saeco received ~50% of bearings), the error constituted a 'very special reason' to recall the 13 July 2016 judgment; no fresh and material changes of circumstance were demonstrated that would justify leaving the variation in place, so the 13 July variation was recalled and the 28 June 2016 orders reinstated.
25 May 2011

THE NEW ZEALAND PORK INDUSTRY BOARD v THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY HC WN CIV-2011-485-719

Citation

openlaw-28ebec25_4c7c_4738_ae7c_a15f136263d3.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the Crown sought, and the applicant did not oppose, a narrowing clarification reflecting that the new import health standards affect processed pork, the court properly varied the interim injunction to insert the words 'consumer ready cuts of raw' before 'pork product' to confine the restraint to those goods and avoid overreach.
8 Oct 2009

S J THOMAS V F.W.T. HOLDINGS LIMITED HC WN CIV-2009-485-120

Citation

openlaw-d2856d11_e2f0_4d3f_940f_e24bd4fdd6c4.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court has jurisdiction to vary the interlocutory order preventing lapse of caveats and, exercising its residual discretion cautiously, granted the respondent's application because the applicant's economic interest could be adequately protected by substitution of the caveats with a $100,000 fund to be paid into Court and held on interest pending determination of the substantive proceeding, thereby balancing the competing interests and enabling development finance to proceed.
27 Sept 2007

ANZ NATIONAL BANK V WATSON AND ORS HC AK CIV 2007-404-005600

Citation

openlaw-43e89a56_a5f9_40f2_bec2_ffc035169d79.pdf
Court

High Court

The interim Mareva injunction is to be continued because ANZ demonstrated a good arguable case of hydraulicing/misrepresentation, identifiable assets within the jurisdiction, and a real risk of dissipation such that the overall justice requires maintenance of the freezing order; however the order is varied to increase Watson's weekly drawings to $1,500 and ANZ is entitled to costs on Scale 2B.

New Zealand Case Law

NSK LIMITED & ANOR v GENERAL EQUIPMENT CO LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2721

THE NEW ZEALAND PORK INDUSTRY BOARD v THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY HC WN CIV-2011-485-719

S J THOMAS V F.W.T. HOLDINGS LIMITED HC WN CIV-2009-485-120

ANZ NATIONAL BANK V WATSON AND ORS HC AK CIV 2007-404-005600