New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adduction of fresh evidence

Legal area

Court

19 Sept 2019

LINCOLN v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2019] NZCA 442

Citation

[2019] NZCA 442
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the High Court's finding that the applicant has a longstanding, enduring defect of character evidenced by aggressive, threatening and unbalanced conduct toward police and lawyers; that the defect materially impairs his ability to meet the statutory fundamental obligations of lawyers and to uphold the administration of justice; the new evidence was admissible and reinforced the pattern of behaviour; supervision after admission would not be a reliable safeguard absent persuasive expert evidence, therefore the applicant is not a fit and proper person and the appeal must be dismi…
7 Sept 2016

MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY v OX GROUP GLOBAL PTY LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2124

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2124
Court

High Court

Leave granted: the High Court has jurisdiction under s172(3)(a) to permit an additional ground of objection where evidence emerged after the hearing supporting that ground; the correspondence and affidavit relied on were new and sufficiently relevant; permitting the amendment serves the interests of justice, will not cause undue prejudice because reply and timetable orders can address any prejudice, and avoids needless duplicate proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner.
19 May 2014

BELL v BDO SPICERS MANAWATU LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1078

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1078
Court

High Court

Stay of execution granted on tailored terms because neither party posed a substantial credit risk and the Court wished to focus proceedings on substantive appellate issues: applicant must pay one half of judgment ($27,500) by specified date or stay will lapse; application to set aside the bankruptcy notice adjourned sine die; leave to appeal and application to adduce fresh evidence to be set down before Williams J; transcript of District Court hearing to be obtained and costs of this hearing to lie where they fall.
25 May 2010

SHANDIL V SHANDIL HC AK CIV-2009-404-008105

Citation

openlaw-9f5b5a31_52d2_4019_b818_029e9eb7feb3.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to adduce further evidence was refused in respect of the updated market valuation of 32 Grassways Avenue and the superannuation evidence because (a) the hearing date valuation rule applies and no special/justice‑based reason justified reopening valuation, and (b) the actuarial bundle‑of‑rights valuation would not materially change because of withdrawal timing; leave was granted to adduce Colonial's 6 January 2010 letter with corrected surrender values for the two life policies because the Family Court had worked with misdescribed figures and the corrected figures make a material arithme…
31 Mar 2006

ABB LTD & ORS V NZ INSULATORS HC AK CIV-2004-404-4829

Citation

openlaw-eabe1460_7262_48df_800f_d25d9e613a22.pdf
Court

High Court

Application refused: although the new evidence was fresh and credible, it was not sufficiently cogent to alter the outcome because the MCBs were sold and used as an integrated product with the safety bases, the spacer solution was not available at the relevant time and admitting the evidence would unfairly permit the defendant to recast its case with hindsight and could not resolve inconsistencies with prior evidence; the Court can do justice on the evidence adduced at trial.
1 Sept 2004

B v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2004] NZACC 263
Court

District Court

Because there has been a material change in the appellant's clinical condition since the respondent's August 2003 decision (notably progress from DBT) the correct remedy is to adjourn the appeal sine die and direct the respondent to reassess the application afresh and issue a fresh decision.

New Zealand Case Law

LINCOLN v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2019] NZCA 442

MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY v OX GROUP GLOBAL PTY LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2124

BELL v BDO SPICERS MANAWATU LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1078

SHANDIL V SHANDIL HC AK CIV-2009-404-008105

ABB LTD & ORS V NZ INSULATORS HC AK CIV-2004-404-4829

B v Accident Compensation Corporation