PARAGON SERVICES LIMITED AND ANOR STIASSNY AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006 404-593

PARAGON SERVICES LIMITED AND ANOR STIASSNY AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006 404-593

Because the application sought to record an interlocutory Chambers hearing which is not normally recorded, because appeals are determined from the written court file and judge's decision rather than an oral recording, and because counsel can be instructed from the file, there was no necessity to depart from normal practice; leave to video-record was refused.

Citation
openlaw-cf034d61_c864_460f_8d1d_be4d1d535756.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Paragon Services Limited; Second Plaintiff: Vincent Ross Siemer; First Defendant: Michael Peter Stiassny; Second Defendant: Ferrier Hodgson and Co Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
16 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (interlocutory Application) / Application to Videotape Chambers Strike Out Hearing Scheduled 31 July 2006
Outcome
Application to video-record the Chambers hearing declined.
Legal Topics
Chambers Hearing, Video Recording of Court Proceedings, Strike Out Application, Access to Court Records
Civil Procedure Court Administration Evidence Chambers Hearing Video Recording of Court Proceedings Strike Out Application Access to Court Records

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paragon Services Limited

First Plaintiff

Vincent Ross Siemer

Second Plaintiff

Michael Peter Stiassny

First Defendant

Ferrier Hodgson and Co Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (interlocutory Application) / Application to Videotape Chambers Strike Out Hearing Scheduled 31 July 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to video-record a Chambers interlocutory hearing
  2. 2 Whether a video record is necessary for appeal purposes
  3. 3 Whether a video record is necessary for instructing counsel yet to be retained

Ratio Decidendi

Because the application sought to record an interlocutory Chambers hearing which is not normally recorded, because appeals are determined from the written court file and judge's decision rather than an oral recording, and because counsel can be instructed from the file, there was no necessity to depart from normal practice; leave to video-record was refused.

Court Disposition

Application to video-record the Chambers hearing declined.

Orders

  • Application to videotape the hearing on 31 July 2006 is declined.