25 Nov 2019
The applicant provided no evidence that the property would be sold prior to the hearing of the appeal or that works were necessary to preserve value; accordingly there was no basis to grant a stay and the application was dismissed.
30 Sept 2019
All parties had been served and the family failed to comply with the directions to propose how arrears would be paid and who would take assignment of the lease; absent acceptable proposals, the court confirmed cancellation of the lease and granted possession to the applicant under ss 244 and 251 of the Property Law Act 2007; no costs were ordered.
14 Jun 2019
An attachment order was appropriate because the liable party had been examined and failed to pay the judgment debt; the rules permit an attachment order after examination and provide a mechanism for variation, and the protected earnings amount should be set at 60% of the liable party's net earnings (calculated at $696.32 per week) to protect minimum subsistence while allowing deductions of $100 per week until the judgment and fees are paid.
9 Aug 2018
The applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving compliance with prior court orders (specifically payment of $3,394.32 in excess costs to the plaintiff); absent such proof the application to discharge the Haseler Crescent freezing order could not succeed. The Court will only discharge the freezing order upon proved payment (to the plaintiff or into Court); other attempts to reopen or recalculate prior awards or to obtain a new freezing order were outside the proper scope given the appellate directions and lack of proof.
27 Jun 2018
The stay was refused because the variation (one additional week of travel) was a minor, justifiable change to interim orders made in the children's welfare interests; the Family Court judge had reasonably weighed the competing factors (including whakapapa and identity benefits, schooling impact and children's views), there was no jurisdictional bar or abusive process warranting a stay, and the advantages to the children outweighed the disruption to routine.
26 Sept 2017
Given PwC's settlement, the court adjusted the security required for the remaining defendants by reducing the second tranche by NZD 560,000 while refusing to refund security already provided, concluding that a 12-week trial remains likely and some retention related to PwC should be preserved to cover uncertainty.
17 Feb 2017
The application to vary Lang J's 26 July 2016 consent orders was dismissed; on the pleaded facts and available affidavits the applicant has established a reasonably arguable equitable proprietary interest via tracing of NZD 4.8m into the purchased property and it is arguable the respondent received the benefit with knowledge of misappropriation, so the caveat should remain pending determination of the substantive proceeding.
2 Nov 2016
The consent order was made and filed under r 25.54 rather than following a judicial determination under r 5.45; the plaintiff did not concede inability to pay; the circumstances relied on by the defendant (pre‑existing loss of business and discovery disputes) did not constitute a material change in circumstances nor justify varying the agreed security; the defendant's delay and foreseeability of discovery disputes foreclosed variation; accordingly the application to increase security is dismissed and the consent order remains in force.
14 Dec 2015
The applicant was successful in opposing the rescission application and in having the majority of the respondent's affidavits ruled inadmissible; given the nature and number of inadmissible affidavits, increased costs are justified and a practical 25% uplift on combined items is appropriate, resulting in an order that the respondent pay $11,518.95 to the applicant.
19 Nov 2015
High Court will not disturb Family Court's substantive decision to retain the term-time split-weekend arrangement because evidence on children's settled views, parental dynamics, risks of change, relevant expert observations and practical work constraints supported the original exercise of discretion; however removal of the existing condition restricting use of friends as medical practitioners was outside the scope of the application and breached procedural fairness, so that condition was reinstated with specified wording.