Amfl Limited v Savill

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2020-409-000143

[2020] NZHC 2053

BETWEEN
AMFL LIMITED

Applicant

AND

SIMON LYDALL SAVILL

Respondent

Hearing: 13 August 2020

Appearances:

M J Hammer (via VMR) and C M O’Brien for Applicant D J Ballantyne for Respondent

Judgment:

13 August 2020

Reissued:

24 August 2020

RESULTS JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] I am satisfied that the interim injunction should be rescinded in its entirety. In my view, the balance of convenience clearly favours AMFL being able to sell the property in its entirety, along with what have been described in submissions as the water assets.

[2] I hope to get my reasons decision out as soon as practicable, but I do have a heavy schedule, so it might take some days.

Solicitors:
Canterbury Legal, Christchurch Anderson Lloyd, Queenstown

Copy to:
D J Ballantyne, Barrister, Christchurch

AMFL LIMITED v SIMON LYDALL SAVILL [2020] NZHC 2053 [13 August 2020]

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Amfl Limited sought an injunction against Simon Lydall Savill to prevent the latter from hindering the sale of a property. The dispute was heard in the Christchurch Registry of the High Court of New Zealand. The primary issue before the Court was whether the interim injunction, which restricted the sale of the property, should be rescinded. The applicant argued that the balance of convenience favoured rescinding the injunction to allow for the sale of the property in its entirety. The respondent contended that the injunction should be maintained to protect his interests.

The Court considered the balance of convenience in deciding whether to rescind the interim injunction. The applicant argued that the sale of the property and the associated water assets in their entirety would be in the best interests of all parties involved. The Court noted that rescinding the injunction would allow for the sale to proceed without hindrance. The Court also took into account the potential harm that would be caused to the applicant if the injunction were not rescinded. The Court was satisfied that the balance of convenience favoured rescinding the injunction in its entirety.

In light of the above, the Court rescinded the interim injunction in its entirety, allowing Amfl Limited to sell the property and associated water assets without hindrance. The Court was satisfied that this decision would be in the best interests of all parties involved and that the balance of convenience favoured rescinding the injunction. The Court hoped to issue its reasons for the decision as soon as practicable.

The Court ordered that the interim injunction be rescinded in its entirety, allowing Amfl Limited to proceed with the sale of the property and associated water assets. The Court also ordered that the costs of the application be paid by the respondent. The Court emphasised the importance of the balance of convenience in making its decision and noted that rescinding the injunction would be in the best interests of all parties involved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	13 August 2020
Appearances:	M J Hammer (via VMR) and C M O’Brien for Applicant D J Ballantyne for Respondent
Judgment:	13 August 2020
Reissued:	24 August 2020