New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adduction of further evidence on appeal

Legal area

Court

9 May 2022

STRINGER v CRAIG [2022] NZCA 168

Citation

[2022] NZCA 168
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld Palmer J's findings that the contested publications were, in most respects, true or honest opinion and, in any event, protected by qualified privilege (reply to attack or duty to publish) because the respondents responded proportionately to a sustained public attack by the appellant and were honest in their belief; the proposed further evidence on appeal was rejected as not fresh or cogent; and the High Court's approach to awarding full indemnity disbursements based on r 14.6(4) principles was unsound and the costs/disbursements issue is remitted for reassessment consistent w…
26 Mar 2013

EASTON AGRICULTURE LIMITED AND EVELEIGH FARMING COMPANY LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) V MANAWATU-WANGANUI REGIONAL COUNCIL COA CA733/2011

Citation

COA CA733/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

Although the Council breached its duty by failing to identify and remedy the c.150 mm gap, the appellants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the gap materially caused the catastrophic stopbank failures and basin inundation; the application to adduce further evidence was refused because the modelling could reasonably have been produced at trial and would necessitate a rehearing; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.
27 Sept 2012

HERBERT V NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED & ORS COA CA701/2011

Citation

COA CA701/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court refused approval because the proposal offered a derisory return to creditors, provided unexplained and preferential benefit to secured creditors by maintaining mortgage payments without evidencing funding or justification, and therefore was neither reasonable nor calculated to benefit the general body of creditors; given the absence of meaningful recovery and unexplained features, the Official Assignee should review the insolvency, so the proposal was rightly declined under s333(3)(b) and (c).
15 Jun 2012

COOKE V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL COA CA125/2012

Citation

COA CA125/2012
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed and the security for costs order of $620 was upheld because the proposed appeal lacked apparent merit, did not raise issues of public importance, and impecuniosity alone did not justify waiving security; accordingly the interests of justice required payment of reduced security within the extended time and the application to adduce further evidence was dismissed.
15 May 2009

NILESH ANAND MANI V THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION HC WN CIV 2009-485-262

Citation

openlaw-15482fec_f567_4a91_9a42_28e274505b63.pdf
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant's grounds were challenges to the Tribunal's factual findings and weighting, not questions of law, the Tribunal had considered the relevant s105 factors and rehabilitation evidence, and there were no special reasons to admit post‑decision evidence of marriage as it could not establish an error of law; consequently the application to adduce further evidence was refused.
8 Dec 2008

DANIEL THOMAS SPENCER RIDDIFORD AND YVONNE ADA RIDDIFORD AND ANOR V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL CA CA632/2008

Citation

openlaw-f40221f8_e314_45da_a798_6de8752bdc2f.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court refused special leave to appeal the interlocutory decision of MacKenzie J because the LVPA appeals are governed by the same discretion to admit further evidence as other appeals (applying the r716 test), the applicants failed to justify admission of the proposed further evidence or explain the delay, and post-valuation events could not inform the valuation as at the relevant date; the Court also declined to consider special leave on the substantive High Court judgment because the High Court leave application remains undetermined.
25 May 1998

Alliance Group Ltd v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1998] NZACC 112
Court

District Court

Given that the respondent accepts the new evidence undermines the finding of a gradual process injury and the claimant has discontinued involvement, the Court allowed the appeal and revoked the Review Officer's decision of 10 June 1996 by consent.

New Zealand Case Law

STRINGER v CRAIG [2022] NZCA 168

EASTON AGRICULTURE LIMITED AND EVELEIGH FARMING COMPANY LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) V MANAWATU-WANGANUI REGIONAL COUNCIL COA CA733/2011

HERBERT V NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED & ORS COA CA701/2011

COOKE V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL COA CA125/2012

NILESH ANAND MANI V THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION HC WN CIV 2009-485-262

DANIEL THOMAS SPENCER RIDDIFORD AND YVONNE ADA RIDDIFORD AND ANOR V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL CA CA632/2008

Alliance Group Ltd v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation