Body Corporate 68792 v Memelink

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2022-485-000802

[2022] NZHC 3489

BETWEEN
BODY CORPORATE 68792

Plaintiff

AND

HARRY MEMELINK and CISCA

JOHNETTE FORSTER as Trustees of THE LINK TRUST (NO 1) (in receivership) Defendant

AND

IAIN BRUCE SHEPHARD and JESSICA

JANE KELLOW as receivers of the Link Trust (No 1)

Interested Party

Hearing: 15 December 2022

Appearances:

A O’Connor for the Plaintiff H Memelink in person

I B Shephard in person for the Interested Party

Judgment:

16 December 2022

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(injunction restraining interference with insurance)

[1] The following interim orders are made until further order of the court. The reasons will follow in a separate judgment.

[2] Mr Memelink and Ms Forster, jointly and severally and whether personally, as trustee or by their servants, agents or otherwise are restrained until further order of the court from:

BODY CORPORATE 68792 v MEMELINK & FORSTER as Trustees of THE LINK TRUST (NO 1) (in
receivership) [2022] NZHC 3489 [16 December 2022]

(a)contacting or engaging with (or causing any person or entity to contact to engage with) in any way whatsoever either current or former Body Corporate insurers and/or brokers; and

(b)taking any steps whatsoever to (or causing any person or entity to) interfere with insurance matters involving Body Corporate 68792.

[3] The plaintiff is directed to file and serve the statement of claim and other documents on or before 23 December 2022.

Grice J

Solicitors:
Mana Law, Porirua

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Wellington Registry, the case of Body Corporate 68792 versus Harry Memelink and Cisca Johnette Forster as Trustees of The Link Trust (No 1) in receivership was heard. The plaintiff, Body Corporate 68792, sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's insurance. The case involved an interim injunction restraining the defendants from contacting or engaging with the plaintiff's insurance brokers or insurers and from taking any steps to interfere with the plaintiff's insurance matters. The hearing took place on 15 December 2022 and judgment was handed down on 16 December 2022.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defendants had engaged in or threatened to engage in conduct that interfered with the plaintiff's insurance and whether an interim injunction should be granted to restrain the defendants from such conduct. The court needed to determine whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for an injunction, including whether there was a serious issue to be tried, whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted, and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction.

The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for an interim injunction. The court noted that the plaintiff had provided evidence of the defendants' past conduct, which included attempts to interfere with the plaintiff's insurance. The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a serious issue to be tried and that it would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction, as the harm to the plaintiff if the injunction was not granted outweighed any harm to the defendants. Accordingly, the court granted the interim injunction, restraining the defendants from contacting or engaging with the plaintiff's insurance brokers or insurers and from taking any steps to interfere with the plaintiff's insurance matters.

In summary, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's insurance. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for an injunction and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction. The injunction will remain in place until further order of the court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established