Legal Research
Cases
ADM International Sarl v Golden Shine NZ Limited

ADM International Sarl v Golden Shine NZ Limited

Case [2023] NZHC 2296 22 August 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-001384

[2023] NZHC 2296

BETWEEN
ADM INTERNATIONAL SARL

Applicant

AND

GOLDEN SHINE NZ LIMITED

Respondent

Hearing: 21 August 2023

Counsel:

A Sherlock and C Hunter for Applicant P Davies for Respondent

Judgment:

22 August 2023

RESULTS JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[1] The respondent’s application to stay the ancillary order made by Campbell J on 2 August 2023 is dismissed. The defendant is to comply with the terms of that order by 5.00 pm on 5 September 2023.

[2] I enlarge the time for the defendant to file any expert evidence on English law to 15 September 2023. In all other respects the existing timetabling directions are unaltered.

Isac J

Solicitors:
Hesketh Henry, Auckland for Applicant Fee Langstone, Auckland for Respondent

ADM INTERNATIONAL SARL v GOLDEN SHINE NZ LTD [2023] NZHC 2296 [22 August 2023]

Details

AGLC: ADM International Sarl v Golden Shine NZ Limited [2023] NZHC 2296
Case: [2023] NZHC 2296
Decision Date: 22 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

ADM International Sarl, a Swiss entity, sought an order from the High Court of New Zealand against Golden Shine NZ Limited, a New Zealand company, to compel the latter to comply with an earlier order from another judge. The dispute arose from a commercial agreement between the parties, leading to claims of breach and counterclaims. The High Court was tasked with enforcing the initial order and considering the respondent's application to stay the enforcement of that order. The central legal issue was whether the respondent's application to stay the enforcement of the earlier order should be granted and, if not, whether the respondent had complied with the initial order.

The court determined that the respondent's application to stay the enforcement of the initial order should be dismissed. The respondent was directed to comply with the terms of the initial order by a specific deadline. Additionally, the court extended the deadline for the respondent to file any expert evidence on English law, but otherwise maintained the existing timetabling directions. The court's reasoning was based on the necessity to enforce the initial order to ensure justice and fairness in the dispute. The court held that the respondent had not provided sufficient grounds to justify a stay of the enforcement of the initial order.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent's application to stay the enforcement of the initial order was dismissed, and the respondent was to comply with the initial order by a specified time. The court also granted an extension for the respondent to file any expert evidence on English law but otherwise maintained the existing timetabling directions. These orders ensured that the enforcement of the initial order proceeded as required, providing a resolution to the immediate issues in the case.

Orders