New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Abandonment

Legal area

Court

30 Aug 2023

HUNT v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 2379

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2379
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify an arguable error of law or fact; the proper test under s 33L MTA is objective ('appears to have been abandoned') and importing a common law test requiring unequivocal subjective intention to relinquish ownership is inconsistent with the statute's language, purpose and prior authority; in the circumstances interests of justice and finality required dismissal of the leave application.
12 Aug 2022

DOKAD TRUSTEES LTD v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2022] NZCA 376

Citation

[2022] NZCA 376
Court

Court of Appeal

Given the respondent's mixed success and that the successful points were simple and could have been advanced briefly, the Court exercised its discretion to award modest costs of 0.3 days totalling $717 rather than the $1,912 sought.
21 Dec 2021

DERMOT GREGORY NOTTINGHAM v THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY [2021] NZSC 186 [21 December 2021]

Citation

[2021] NZSC 186
Court

Supreme Court

r 43 does not apply to cross-appeals; r 37(1) governs defaults in payment of security for costs on cross-appeals; where security was paid and no prejudice or miscarriage of justice resulted and no issue of public importance is raised, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is not justified, therefore leave is refused.
6 Oct 2021

STEWART v THE FAMILY COURT AT AUCKLAND (COSTS) [2021] NZHC 2671

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2671
Court

High Court

The plaintiff was not an aided person in respect of the leave to appeal; absent a grant of legal aid there is no costs immunity, s 143(3) barred the appeal absent Family Court leave, and the appropriate outcome is to award standard Category 2B costs to the second and third defendants in the sum of $2,629.00, conditional on Legal Aid declining the plaintiff's reconsideration application for aid up to the date of discontinuance.
17 Jul 2020

RE MARRINER PROPERTY LIMITED [2020] NZHC 1747

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1747
Court

High Court

The easement had not been used for decades, was subsumed and built over by later development, beneficiaries are deceased or companies deregistered, and the continuation of the easement would impede reasonable use of the land; these facts satisfied s317 criteria so the Court extinguished the right of way and granted leave to commence by originating application in the High Court.
8 May 2017

R J AUTO LIMITED v GALLOWAY PROPERTIES LIMITED [2017] NZHC 909

Citation

[2017] NZHC 909
Court

High Court

Because the tenants had abandoned possession before the landlord's peaceful re-entry, the subsequent s 245 notice and statutory procedure were sufficient to preserve the landlord's statutory remedies under the Property Law Act 2007; the earlier physical re-entry did not invalidate the landlord's claims and the District Court's award was therefore upheld.
3 May 2017

MATTHEW JOHN YOUNG v THE DISTRICT COURT AT HAMILTON [2017] NZSC 60 ]

Citation

[2017] NZSC 60
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to progress the application, did not respond to the Registrar's attempts to contact him, and did not rectify non‑compliance after formal notice under s 338(2) Criminal Procedure Act 2011; the appeal to the Court of Appeal had in any event been abandoned under r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, and the applicant's name was already in the public domain.
21 Feb 2017

CUDBY AND MEADE LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND FURNITURE MANUFACTURING AND ASSOCIATED WORKERSʼ UNION INCORPORATED [2017] NZCA 15

Citation

[2017] NZCA 15
Court

Court of Appeal

Abandonment of the application does not prevent a costs order; the second respondent was entitled to costs under r26A(3) and Schedule 2 and was awarded costs on a band A basis for 0.6 days for his memoranda.
8 Jun 2016

AON NEW ZEALAND v MOFFETT ORCHARDS LIMITD [2016] NZHC 1212

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1212
Court

High Court

The court declined to award costs because settlement by substitution of parties disposed of the appeal without determining the points of appeal, neither party prevailed, and public policy favours encouraging such pragmatic resolutions; late offers or concessions did not justify an uplift or awarding costs to either side.
25 Feb 2016

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON v WAYNE SEYMOUR CHAPMAN [2016] NZSC 17

Citation

[2016] NZSC 17
Court

Supreme Court

Because the applicant filed the application for leave and did not withdraw it, the Supreme Court was required to determine it; the respondent filed submissions and was entitled to costs; therefore the prior judgment was not a nullity and the application for recall is dismissed.