29 Mar 2022
Although appellant made greater early labour contributions, he failed to prove it would be unconscionable for the legal owners (the estate) to retain full legal title or to yield the 25% personal interest claimed; consequently no institutional constructive trust arose and the District Court's dismissal was correct.
16 Apr 2014
The High Court upheld the District Court: previous specified acts, together with recent conduct and an ongoing, demonstrated grudge, established a pattern that would cause distress to the applicant in his particular circumstances and made a restraining order necessary to protect him from further harassment; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
9 Sept 2011
The application to admit the appellant's affidavit under the High Court Rules was refused because the statement sought to be adduced was not fresh: it had been filed with the Tribunal and its substance was already before the Tribunal in other forms. The court nonetheless directed that the appeal hearing should take the explanations contained in that statement into account and confirmed timetabling orders to progress the appeal; it declined to admit the recent supplementary affidavit for interlocutory consideration due to irrelevance and unsupported allegations.
23 May 2011
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to prove circumstances beyond its control that excused non-compliance and failed to demonstrate reasonable, tangible efforts to remedy the breach by the longstop date; the appellant bore the onus and did not show sufficient diligence or concrete progress in obtaining access, consents or contracts to justify continuation of the permit.
31 Mar 2008
The court applied r716 and the established tests of freshness, credibility and cogency and concluded the evidence sought (2006 sales, Quotable Value letter, alleged Deed breaches, costs) failed the cogency/freshness tests or was peripheral/hearsay; accordingly leave to adduce further evidence was refused; inspection is left to the presiding judge and costs evidence is premature.
21 May 2007
No implied term to equally share physical yard space arose: the term was not necessary to give business efficacy, was not capable of clear expression given the short fixed term and uncertainties, and the agreement operated satisfactorily until the appellant unilaterally sought to increase its stock; therefore the appellant's termination was unlawful and the appeal is dismissed.
10 Nov 2005
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Family Court had properly applied relevant principles (including s5 Care of Children Act 2004), had reasonably evaluated credibility and the children's wishes, and had not misweighed continuity or whanau considerations to the extent that the decision was plainly wrong; the custody order allowing relocation to Queensland was therefore upheld, with timing of the move deferred until after 20 December to allow completion of the school year.
21 Jun 2001
Respondent lawfully exercised its discretion: appellant possessed transferable pre-injury skills making retraining unnecessary under the Clause 55 hierarchy; the proposed four-year degree was not likely cost-effective under Clause 56 and exceeded the statutory three-year funding ceiling; no error of law or miscarriage of justice was shown, therefore the decline to fund the course was upheld.
1 Dec 1998
The Corporation failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the claimant suffered a work injury at work on 22 February 1997; the claimant's evidence was unreliable and uncorroborated, key witness statements were false, reporting procedures were not followed, and therefore the Review Officer's acceptance of the claim was revoked.