Accessibility Skip to Global Navigation Skip to Local Navigation Skip to Content Skip to Search Skip to Site Map

Articles for the keyword(s) "Interim relief"

"Injunctions and Overseas Arbitration"

Tim Smith, 2013

Discovery Geo Corporation v STP Energy Pte Ltd [2012] NZHC 3549; [2013] 2 NZLR 122 is noted for the judgment’s discussion of the courts jurisdiction to grant ex parte preliminary orders in arbitration proceedings governed by the Arbitration Act 1996. Notably the judgment makes clear that while the Arbitration Act 1996 empowers courts to grant ex parte orders in support of foreign arbitrations it does not confer jurisdiction over a particular defendant. Jurisdiction over any foreign domiciled defendant must be established according to the High Court Rules. The author notes the potential hurdles such a position creates for a party seeking urgent interim measures in New Zealand against a foreign respondent in support of a foreign arbitration. By way of solution, the author states that applications for interim measures should be made in a timely way to allow for effective service and protest to jurisdiction under the High Court Rules. The author states that in cases of extreme urgency applications are best made in the jurisdiction to whic

^ Top of page

"Global Disputes – Jurisdiction, Interim Relief and Enforcement of Judgments"

David Goddard, 1999

This contribution contains extracts from a paper prepared by David Goddard for the NZLS triennial conference. The focus is on cross-border disputes, especially trans-Tasman disputes, and the problems involved in the enforcement of interim orders and final judgments. The inadequacy of legislation in this area is highlighted and accession to and participation in relevant international conventions are recommended.

^ Top of page

"Interim relief in support of foreign arbitrations and judicial proceedings"

Jack Wass, 2017

The author considers the High Court's powers to grant interim protective relief in aid of substantive proceedings, and argues that the Court has been wrong to hold that it may not consider such applications before it has determined a respondent's protest to jurisdiction.