New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admission of new evidence

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2022

YINGQIU ZHANG v WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2022] NZSC 34

Citation

[2022] NZSC 34
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave was dismissed because the proposed appeal raised no question of general or public importance nor appearance of miscarriage of justice, the Court of Appeal properly reviewed and upheld the factual findings that Westpac took reasonable steps and valuations supported the sale price under s176(1), and the remaining complaints were either not raised below, irrelevant, disputed, or did not show error in the exercise of judicial discretion.
22 Feb 2022

LYNNE FRANCES SNOWDON v RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2022] NZSC 9

Citation

[2022] NZSC 9
Court

Supreme Court

The extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide adequate reasons for the six year delay or to justify why the Official Information Act request could not have been made earlier; there were no exceptional circumstances to permit a direct appeal to the Supreme Court and the matters raised were questions of fact not law; because the extension was refused the applications to adduce new evidence and for a stay of execution of the costs order also failed.
15 Jul 2021

JOHN ALFRED DOWDEN v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2021] NZSC 86

Citation

[2021] NZSC 86
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave to appeal (and effectively for an extension of time) is dismissed because the proposed appeal lacks sufficient merit: the applicant failed to identify specific grounds, the TRA's credibility findings and contemporaneous documents undermine his case, and there is no real prospect of miscarriage of justice that would justify an extension.
16 Apr 2018

WK v THE REFUGEE PROTECTION OFFICER, MBIE, AUCKLAND [2018] NZHC 683

Citation

[2018] NZHC 683
Court

High Court

Interim relief was granted because deportation would render the appeal nugatory under s142 and there are arguable grounds concerning the interpretation and application of s140 (including relationship between s140(1) and s140(3), meaning of key concepts, and potential admissibility of new evidence) warranting consideration by the Court of Appeal; accordingly Crown agreed not to deport the applicant until specified events, and the court gave effect to that agreement pending appeal.
14 Feb 2017

TE WHARE O TE KAITIAKI NGAHERE INC v WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 150

Citation

[2017] NZHC 150
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal: the Environment Court did not err in refusing to vary the security for costs and in striking out the proceedings because (a) the appellant had not posted any security and could not demonstrate capacity to meet even a reduced order, and (b) the proposed amended pleadings remained fatally deficient in specificity such that declaratory relief under s310 RMA was inappropriate; alleged factual errors did not amount to errors of law warranting intervention.
26 Jul 2012

FUNG v WESTPAC NZ LIMITED COA CA857/2011

Citation

COA CA857/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time and leave to adduce new evidence are refused because the proposed grounds lack any arguable question of law or fact capable of serious argument, the new evidence is not cogent or outcome‑determinative, and the application discloses no sufficient public or private interest to justify a further appeal; consequentially the stay is quashed and costs awarded to respondent with uplift for non‑compliance and meritless conduct.
4 May 2006

NEVILLE JAMES GIBSON V DENTISTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL CA CA41/05

Citation

openlaw-903623bd_5713_4aed_bd57_05d729dfbdb9.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prosecute the appeal with due diligence resulting in inordinate and inexcusable delay, such delay caused serious prejudice to the Tribunal and complainant (including the need to re-open evidence years after events), and the overall interests of justice favored dismissal under the Court's discretion pursuant to the High Court Rules.

New Zealand Case Law

YINGQIU ZHANG v WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2022] NZSC 34

LYNNE FRANCES SNOWDON v RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2022] NZSC 9

JOHN ALFRED DOWDEN v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2021] NZSC 86

WK v THE REFUGEE PROTECTION OFFICER, MBIE, AUCKLAND [2018] NZHC 683

TE WHARE O TE KAITIAKI NGAHERE INC v WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 150

FUNG v WESTPAC NZ LIMITED COA CA857/2011

NEVILLE JAMES GIBSON V DENTISTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL CA CA41/05