New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appeals

Legal area

Court

6 Oct 2023

ANSIN v RAMAGE [2023] NZHC 2806

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2806
Court

High Court

The court held that items claimed for case management and the telephone conference were recoverable on appeal because item 54 of Schedule 3 incorporates case management items (items 10–15) into appeals; the application to dismiss the appeal (necessitated by non-payment of security for costs) was recoverable under item 22 despite later discontinuance; the claim for preparing a filing in relation to counsel's withdrawal was disallowed because no responsive memoranda were filed by the respondent. Consequently the respondent was awarded reduced costs of $12,428 and the security for costs of $2,30…
18 Mar 2020

TAN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2020] NZHC 546

Citation

[2020] NZHC 546
Court

High Court

Because the appellant did not complete the three mandatory steps in r 20.6(1) (filing in the High Court, filing in the Tribunal office, and service on other parties) within the 22 working day limit prescribed by s 123(4) of the Human Rights Act 1993, and because precedent establishes the Court cannot extend or waive those requirements, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal and it must be struck out.
21 Aug 2017

IA v RRN [2017] NZHC 1997

Citation

[2017] NZFLR 659
Court

High Court

The court exercised its discretion under s142 COCA in a child-centred manner, balancing the appellant's entitlement to costs with the child's welfare and the respondent's financial hardship, and awarded a reduced contribution of approximately 35% of the claimed costs ($5,750) with the order to lie in Court until 21 February 2018; the question of party contributions to the lawyer-for-child costs was reserved pending provision of the lawyer's invoice and submissions.
19 Jun 2017

UNISON NETWORKS LIMITED v SOLAR CITY NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1343

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1343
Court

High Court

The Panel had no jurisdiction to determine the dispute because s 50(4) restricts the Rulings Panel to appeals and disputes of a kind identified in the Regulations or the Code; the dispute did not satisfy the prerequisities of reg 31/sch 6.3 (no investigation was conducted) and s 50(5) required the Panel to apply prescribed procedures; the Panel could not assert a broader residual jurisdiction under s 50(4) or reg 76(1).
29 Feb 2016

McCaig v A Professional Conduct Committee [2016] NZHC 306

Citation

[2016] NZHC 306
Court

High Court

The appellant had achieved a material overall reduction in penalty and was therefore the successful party; costs were awarded to the appellant on a 2B scale for the substantive appeal and an additional $1,000 for this costs judgment; the respondent's public function did not automatically preclude a costs order.
1 Oct 2015

KAWARAU VILLAGE HOLDINGS LTD v CHI [2015] NZHC 2387

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2387
Court

High Court

Under r 3.16 the court balanced the relevance of the pleadings to the applicants' appeal and the orderly and fair administration of justice against confidentiality and privacy interests and held that access to the pleadings should be granted because relevance and fairness weighed in favour, subject to protective conditions to address privacy and confidentiality concerns.
27 Mar 2014

MS ALDER V MS EVANS CA 300/2013[2014] NZCA 100

Citation

[2014] NZCA 100
Court

Court of Appeal

The Registrar's decision was correct and is confirmed: the appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify dispensing with security for costs; impecuniosity alone was insufficient, the appeal's merits were dubious and there was no sufficient public importance to override the usual rule; security for costs must be paid (ordered at $5,880).
17 May 2013

VIKRAM ABRAHAM JOSEPH V A PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE HC WN CIV 2013-485-47

Citation

openlaw-f08a6337_ba31_4e96_a98e_ebd27578d961.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's factual conclusion that the appellant intentionally accessed child pornography; the Tribunal's suspension and conditions were within the reasonable range given the need to protect the public and uphold professional standards, but the combined financial burden of the costs award and required rehabilitation programme was disproportionate, warranting reduction of the costs contribution from 35% to 5%.
21 Aug 2012

O'BYRNE v THE WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT COUNCIL COA CA35/2012

Citation

openlaw-40c86dba_fbfd_4b19_b71f_9a5525b94050.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the application for special leave for lack of jurisdiction because s144 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 applies only where an appeal has been heard in the High Court; a refusal by the High Court to extend time to appeal is not a matter within s144 for special leave to the Court of Appeal.
19 Sept 2011

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH V IDEA SERVICES LIMITED HC WN CIV 2011-485-1562

Citation

openlaw-5eb5fb28_5d2b_4b78_b2fd_f609406e6ec3.pdf
Court

High Court

The strike out application was dismissed because the appellant had a valid, timely right to appeal the Tribunal's 13 July 2011 orders under s 123 of the Human Rights Act 1993; an appeal against those orders is not an abuse of process and the appropriate scope and limits of that appeal are matters for the judge who will hear the substantive appeal.