New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adjournment of trial

Legal area

Court

7 Sept 2023

BALLANTYNE TRUSTEES LTD v HFK Ltd [2023] NZHC 2512

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2512
Court

High Court

The adjournment was granted because persuasive contemporaneous medical evidence showed the second plaintiff was fully unfit to prepare for or attend trial and to instruct new counsel for an estimated 6–12 months, and that inability would prevent fair preparation of the plaintiffs' case; this outweighed the defendants' prejudice which was mitigated by the court having reviewed the medical material and by ordering close case management.
14 Aug 2023

HURITU & ORS v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZHC 2173

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2173
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its broad discretion under High Court Rule 10.2 to adjourn the trial because the parties jointly demonstrated an interim settlement process that made it unrealistic the proceedings would require a contested trial; simultaneously the Court dismissed the proceedings of four plaintiffs for want of prosecution under Rule 15.2 because those plaintiffs had failed to comply with directions, effectively abandoned their claims, and continued prosecution would constitute misuse of the judicial process; confidentiality and publication suppression orders were justified to preserve the…
28 Feb 2023

HELLABY RESOURCE SERVICES LTD v BODY CORPORATE 197281 [2023] NZHC 341

Citation

[2023] NZHC 341
Court

High Court

Adjournment denied because the interests of justice favoured maintaining the fixed fixture to avoid prejudice to the Maynard Marks plaintiffs; SRG bore significant responsibility for its lack of readiness by failing to comply with agreed and court-ordered discovery timelines and assurances it would 'catch up'; the body corporate must apply for leave to file its late amended counterclaim and SRG can oppose; there remained sufficient time (approximately 15 weeks) for SRG to complete discovery and serve evidence, so adjournment was not justified.
25 Nov 2022

BAYLIS v THE DISTRICT COURT AT PALMERSTON NORTH [2022] NZHC 3112

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3112
Court

High Court

Because the relief sought by judicial review had been achieved when the District Court later granted the adjournment, the High Court concluded the judicial review was moot and struck the proceeding out; costs were declined on the facts and having regard to the applicant's urgent filing and fee waiver application.
27 Jun 2022

HURITU AND OTHERS v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 1500

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1500
Court

High Court

The adjournment was granted because, on balance, the interests of justice required vacating the September 2022 three-week fixture: pleadings and discovery were not settled or complete, the civil proceedings risked prejudicing the plaintiffs' parallel criminal trials and vice versa, the nominated September claims were not truly representative and would not dispose of the litigation leading to inefficiency and risk of inconsistent decisions, and the plaintiffs' claims for past damages were not sufficiently urgent to outweigh these considerations.
17 Jun 2022

DGL MANUFACTURING LTD v SIMMONDS [2022] NZHC 1434

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1434
Court

High Court

The Court declined to award any costs. The adjournment was granted because the second counterclaim defendant could not return to New Zealand due to COVID border arrangements and his travel did not constitute a default warranting a wasted costs order. There were no special reasons to reserve costs of the interlocutory adjournment application and overall no party was entitled to costs, including costs of the costs memorandum.
17 Jun 2022

KEAN v HAYWARD [2022] NZHC 1437

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1437
Court

High Court

Adjournment was declined because plaintiffs delayed seeking it after discovery, failed to provide persuasive affidavit evidence (including from experts) that they could not prepare by the scheduled date, and because an adjournment would cause disproportionate prejudice to trustees and other beneficiaries and impose unacceptable strain on limited court resources; instead the Court adjusted the timetable to give plaintiffs more time while preserving the September fixture.
20 Dec 2019

SHANGHAI NEUHOF TRADE CO LTD v ZESPRI INTERNATIONAL LTD [2019] NZHC 3479

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3479
Court

High Court

Adjournment refused because plaintiffs failed to take reasonable steps to secure critical witness evidence from Chinese detention, the prejudice to Zespri from further delay and staleness of the case outweighed the plaintiffs' prejudice, and the public interest in timely resolution and finality required proceeding to the scheduled trial.
27 May 2019

SHANGHAI NEUHOF TRADE CO LTD v ZESPRI INTERNATIONAL LTD [2019] NZHC 1176

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1176
Court

High Court

On balance the court will grant a limited adjournment: the unavailability of the plaintiffs' critical witness imprisoned in China justified vacating the 1 July 2019 fixture and relisting for specified dates in 2020 because, despite the plaintiffs' delay in taking all practicable steps, the prejudice of proceeding without the witness outweighed the prejudice of a modest delay to the defendant; the adjournment is granted on terms and the court will not fetter its future discretion to require the trial to proceed if the witness remains unavailable.
28 Aug 2018

PLUMPTON v TERRY [2018] NZHC 2241

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2241
Court

High Court

The court granted leave to file the amended statement of claim because the proposed amendments (including the new eighth cause of action) did not unfairly prejudice the defendants and depended on pleaded facts; the defendants were given a fixed time to file an amended defence. The court dismissed the adjournment application because an adjournment of the three‑week trial would cause about a 12‑month delay and would not be in the interests of justice, but the court granted a limited extension for service of defendants' evidence and amended timetable directions to mitigate any prejudice.