Johnson v Johnson

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2020-485-417

[2021] NZHC 3369

BETWEEN
MARIA BERNADETTE JOHNSON

Plaintiff

AND

CRAIG BRYAN JOHNSON

First Defendant

AND

CRAIG BRYAN JOHNSON, MARIA BERNADETTE JOHNSON and GRANT

MAITLAND RICHARDSON as trustees of the CB and MB Johnson Family Trust Second Defendants

On the Papers

Counsel:

G M Illingworth QC, C J R Baird, P Magee and J Wademan for the Plaintiff

C M Stevens, T Mijatov, H Stanford and M L Greenhough for the First Defendant

Judgment:

9 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

(Rescission of interim injunction)

[1] On the evening of 14 August 2020 I granted the plaintiff’s urgent without notice application for an interim injunction (the ex parte interim orders). In my judgment of 19 August 2020 I provided my reasons for granting the application.1

[2] The plaintiff’s substantive application was not subsequently pursued and has not been discontinued. The plaintiff has advised the Court that she withdraws her

1 Johnson v Johnson [2020] NZHC 2093.

JOHNSON v JOHNSON [2021] NZHC 3369 [9 December 2021]

affidavit evidence filed in support of the application. The parties to the ex parte interim orders seek by consent to have the orders rescinded.

[3] The Court has an inherent jurisdiction to modify or revoke procedural orders, at any time before a substantive judgment determines the parties’ rights and in circumstances where those orders have become unjust.2 As Dunningham J noted in AMFL Ltd v Savill that jurisdiction extends to varying or rescinding interlocutory injunction orders in the light of changing circumstances as justice requires.3

[4] Accordingly, by consent, I rescind the ex parte interim orders made on 14 August 2020.

[5] Pursuant to r 5(2) of the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 I direct that neither the Court file nor any document on the Court file be accessed without the permission of a Justice.

Gwyn J

2 Ryde Holdings Limited v Sorenson (1995) 8 PRNZ 339 (HC).
3 AMFL Ltd v Savill [2020] NZHC 2112 at [19], citing Foodtown Supermarkets Limited v TSE
(1987) 2 PRNZ 545 (HC) and Sealegs International Limited v Zhang [2017] NZHC 741 at [8].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, dealt with a case involving Maria Bernadette Johnson as the plaintiff against Craig Bryan Johnson as the first defendant, and Craig Bryan Johnson, Maria Bernadette Johnson, and Grant Maitland Richardson as trustees of the CB and MB Johnson Family Trust as the second defendants. The matter at hand was the plaintiff's withdrawal of her substantive application, leading to a request to rescind interim injunction orders previously granted ex parte on August 14, 2020. The plaintiff's affidavit evidence supporting the application was withdrawn, and all parties consented to rescind the interim injunction.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the ex parte interim injunction orders could be rescinded due to the withdrawal of the substantive application and the changing circumstances that rendered the orders unjust. The court considered its inherent jurisdiction to modify or revoke procedural orders before a substantive judgment determines the parties' rights. It referenced previous cases where the court varied or rescinded interlocutory injunction orders based on justice and changing circumstances.

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to rescind the interim injunction orders, recognising that such orders could be modified or revoked in light of the plaintiff's withdrawal of her affidavit evidence and the consent of all parties involved. The court also directed that the Court file and any document on the Court file could not be accessed without the permission of a Justice, in accordance with the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017.

The court granted the application by consent to rescind the ex parte interim injunction orders made on August 14, 2020. Additionally, it directed that neither the Court file nor any document on the Court file be accessed without the permission of a Justice.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established