New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appeal leave

Legal area

Court

31 May 2023

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND v DAVEY [2023] NZHC 1362

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1362
Court

High Court

The court found the statutory threshold for adjudication was satisfied and the debtor failed to establish reasons under s37 to refuse adjudication: the debtor engaged in culpable commercial conduct (unauthorised $1.7m overdraft and diversion of proceeds), his claim against BNZ/receivers was filed late, lacks adequate particularity and is unlikely to resolve promptly, and absence of assets was uncorroborated; accordingly there was no basis to halt the adjudication under s38 and the Court adjudicated the debtor bankrupt.
14 Jul 2021

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v DOYLE [2021] NZHC 1783

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1783
Court

High Court

Adjournment granted because respondents credibly demonstrated they could not complete their evidence until mid-September 2021 given complexity, late provision of particulars and limited resources; objections to admissibility and pursuit of leave to appeal did not by themselves justify vacating the fixture, and the balance of prejudice favoured adjournment since restrained assets were unlikely to materially depreciate.
15 Mar 2021

GEORGE ADDERLEY EVANS v A COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE OF THE TEACHING COUNCIL OF AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND [2021] NZCA 66

Citation

[2021] NZCA 66
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the proposed legal question was not one capable of bona fide and serious argument given settled authority and the replicated statutory wording, and because the Tribunal's and District Court's approach produced a higher threshold than the applicant's proposed test and thus could not assist him.
25 Sept 2020

McMURTRIE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 2522

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2522
Court

High Court

The material sought meets the low relevance threshold under the CDA, the prosecutor failed to provide adequate reasons for withholding under s14(3)(b), and the District Court applied an incorrect legal test by focusing on probative value and resource burden; matter is therefore referred back to the District Court for proper s30 consideration.
11 Jun 2020

ZINDIA LTD v MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL [2020] NZCA 229

Citation

[2020] NZCA 229
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was granted because the Court identified a concrete question of law—whether the High Court erred in construing the meaning and scope of Consents U120345.1 and U120345.6—and although the issue was unlikely to be of general public importance, there was a real risk of miscarriage of justice if the consents were misconstrued and Zindia was deprived of its proper appellate remedy.
9 May 2019

MAC MOTORS LTD v BUTCH PET FOODS LTD [2019] NZCA 148

Citation

[2019] NZCA 148
Court

Court of Appeal

The court held that the fact a successful party was unrepresented should not be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of expert witness costs; any change to permit such consideration is a matter for legislative or rule reform, and Brewer J's reductions to the District Court disbursements award were a correct application of r14.12 and are upheld.
24 Aug 2012

BURGESS V BEAVEN HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-000876

Citation

openlaw-1b2153dc_372f_4643_a9bd_eeb31ac42ce7.pdf
Court

High Court

Because counsel's incorrect statement was an honest mistake that did not prejudice the appellant and the outcome of the appeal would have been the same, the court exercised its discretion to award costs to the successful respondent on a 2B basis.
23 Nov 2009

SHIVARH JEWELLY NAVARATNAM N RATNA HARAN V CHARIKA DEEPTHI WIJEWARDENA KULARATNE HC WN CIV 2009-485-2119

Citation

openlaw-14a50be4_1ca1_41ff_96d5_03c3b447be0e.pdf
Court

High Court

There was no basis to grant interim orders or an injunction to stop the Family Court hearing; the alleged issues do not justify High Court intervention and should largely be litigated in the Family Court, so the interim application is declined.
6 Sept 2006

AMALTAL CORPORATION LIMITED V MARUHA CORPORATION AND ANOR SC 46/2006

Citation

SC 46/2006
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed Amaltal's application for leave because the Court of Appeal's application of s28 to deceit was orthodox and had no prospect of being successfully challenged; the alleged misdirection raised no question of law and was a collateral attack on concurrent factual findings. Maruha was granted leave to appeal on two specified grounds (fiduciary duty and reduction of damages).
28 Apr 2004

CARTER HOLT HARVEY LTD V LOU YUKICH CA CA42/04

Citation

openlaw-c3e09a96_2932_4c7e_8ece_8f8d798b58f4.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted in part because there are arguable errors of law on the remedies: the appropriateness of 58 weeks' lost remuneration, the availability of post-termination redundancy entitlements under s123(c)(ii) and the effect of a 50% contribution reduction, and certain mitigation law questions (whether mitigation obligations differ for those seeking reinstatement and whether voluntary union work can constitute mitigation). Leave was declined on the rehearing/de novo issue, the factual comparative-mitigation point, and the obligation-to-attend-work point because the Employment C…