New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Without‑notice applications

Legal area

Court

18 May 2023

KOKO RIDGE LTD [2023] NZHC 1187

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1187
Court

High Court

Leave was granted and without‑notice relief permitted because applicant demonstrated undue delay and prejudice from notifying numerous beneficiaries and showed it had made reasonable inquiries; on the merits s317(1) is satisfied as the relevant easements and covenants are redundant in relation to the areas to vest as public road due to changed circumstances (connection to Council services, decommissioning), extinguishment will not substantially injure beneficiaries, and therefore specified instruments should be extinguished as to the land to vest as road.
28 Apr 2023

DFT v JDN [2023] NZCA 131

Citation

[2023] NZCA 131
Court

Court of Appeal

The High Court correctly struck out the applicant's judicial review under r 15.1(1)(c) and (d) because the application was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process: there was no urgency justifying without‑notice filing, the Family Court judge properly directed the matters proceed on notice under r 416J, and the applicant's filing sought to gain an unfair advantage by avoiding service.
10 Mar 2023

RE ESTATES OF GLUE [2023] NZHC 464

Citation

[2023] NZHC 464
Court

High Court

Because the trustee had taken reasonable measures over many years, more than 60 days had elapsed since the last measures, the potential beneficiary was not located and made no claim, and no respondent opposed the application, the court authorised distribution of the estates under s136 of the Trusts Act 2019 as if the potential beneficiary did not exist.
22 Dec 2022

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v TOWNSHEND [2022] NZHC 3598

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3598
Court

High Court

On the evidence including intercepted shipments of precursor chemicals, seized drug‑related materials, surveillance and forensic accounting showing unexplained cash flows and asset purchases, the Court was satisfied there were reasonable grounds to believe respondents had unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity and that the listed property constituted tainted property; there was a real risk of disposal if notice were given, justifying a without‑notice interim restraining order and granting police and Official Assignee powers to enter premises to take custody and control of ide…
8 Dec 2022

UNITED BUILDERS LTD v MKOD DEVELOPMENTS LTD [2022] NZHC 3282

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3282
Court

High Court

Because only the presumption from an unsatisfied statutory demand existed and there was no firm evidence that MKOD's assets were being dissipated or at imminent risk — and the director's prior unrelated conviction did not meet the required threshold — it was not necessary or expedient to appoint an interim liquidator without notice; the application was therefore declined and the plaintiffs must serve and advertise their liquidation proceedings in the usual way.
5 Sept 2022

THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE v ADAMS [2022] NZHC 2249

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2249
Court

High Court

On the affidavit material the Court was satisfied there were reasonable grounds to believe the property was tainted or represented unlawful benefit—based on the respondent's charges for supply, discovery of significant hidden cash proximate to controlled drugs, inconsistencies between declared income and assets, prior restraint history, and genuine risk of dissipation—and accordingly granted without‑notice restraining orders under ss 24 and 25 and vested control in the Official Assignee.
23 Aug 2022

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v COLE [2022] NZHC 2095

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2095
Court

High Court

The judge was satisfied on the material that notice would risk disposal or concealment of the assets and would unduly prejudice enforcement; the affidavits gave reasonable grounds to believe the bank funds, vehicles and simulator were tainted or derived from significant criminal activity or represented unlawful benefit; accordingly the court properly exercised its discretion to grant restraining and further orders without notice and to prohibit publication identifying the respondents pending the on‑notice application.
17 Dec 2021

MT CARDRONA STATION LIMITED v ELLISTON & ORS [2021] NZHC 3537

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3537
Court

High Court

The renewed application to proceed without notice was declined because the applicant had engaged in extended negotiations over two years without completing service, could not rely on undue delay as a ground for without‑notice relief, interests of justice required notice given ongoing negotiations and partial settlements, and the appropriate course is service or seeking summary judgment rather than ex parte orders.
12 Oct 2021

BAIGENT [2021] NZHC 2729

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2729
Court

High Court

The rescission application was declined because the earlier Judge's decision was not shown to be wrong; the distinction between an easement being 'no longer of practical effect' and 'redundant' was immaterial, and s316(3) requires service on affected persons except where the court directs otherwise, so extinguishing a property right without notice was inappropriate in the circumstances.
2 Sept 2021

BARTLETTS CREEK VINEYARD LTD PARTNERSHIP v MAGINNESS and BOOTH (as administrators of SACRED HILL MARLBOROUGH VINEYARDS LTD) [2021] NZHC 2295

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2295
Court

High Court

The Court had jurisdiction to reconsider the without‑notice extension order because leave was reserved to creditors to apply to vary or set it aside; the administrators presented sufficient grounds (urgent risk to sale as going concern and prejudice from delay in serving many creditors) to justify a without‑notice application under High Court Rules r7.23/r7.46, although the supporting materials should have better identified and explained the specific r7.23 grounds and the reason for the late filing; accordingly Bartletts Creek's application to set aside or challenge the without‑notice procedu…