30 May 2022
The proceeding was plainly an abuse of process with no arguable merit and circularly attacked prior judicial decisions; it would be unfair to require the respondent to plead and permitting the claim to proceed would undermine the court's control of its processes, therefore it must be struck out under rr 5.35A–5.35B.
9 May 2022
The Court allowed applicants four days (time band C) for preparation of affidavits for step 30 given factual complexity and multiple deponents; it held an uplift under r 14.6(3)(c) was justified because the proceedings concerned fundamental rights and were of wider public importance, and applied a 50% uplift resulting in an award around NZD 40,000 plus disbursements; interlocutory application costs lie where they fall and no costs were ordered for the costs application; Registrar to calculate and fix quantum.
27 May 2019
Causes of action 2 to 12 were struck out as non-justiciable or legally untenable: courts cannot inquire into Select Committee processes or Parliamentary proceedings (statutory and constitutional bar); the Treaty of Waitangi does not of itself create enforceable legal rights absent legislative incorporation; challenges to the content of an Act of Parliament are not justiciable under the Declaratory Judgments Act. The single surviving cause (alleged ultra vires of the Order under s 74A Arms Act) was not struck out because review of legislative instruments, including repealed instruments, may be…
10 May 2019
Applicant's conduct met the threshold of exceptional circumstances under s45 because he pursued proceedings in the High Court to make the process as expensive for the Council as possible, failed to call corroborating witnesses despite consistent contrary evidence from Council staff, and thereby abused legal aid to impose disproportionate costs; accordingly a costs order against the legally aided plaintiff was appropriate, fixed at $500 having regard to his limited means though $29,547 would have been payable but for s45.
15 Oct 2018
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to satisfy s237: his arguments denying the applicability of New Zealand law to Māori did not raise a matter of general or public importance and the asserted non‑disclosure did not establish a real risk of miscarriage of justice given the straightforward and largely uncontested evidential basis for the infringement convictions.
26 Nov 2014
The Court granted the interim injunction because the plaintiffs demonstrated an arguable cause of action in defamation and injurious falsehood, the balance of convenience favored injunctive relief given the insidious and hard-to-quantify nature of the harm, and freedom of expression did not protect the defendant's conduct.
1 Jul 2008
The inspection and seizure were lawful because officers acted under the broad domestic enforcement powers in ss199 and 206 of the Fisheries Act; Part 6A does not displace those port inspection powers; the approval conditions were within s113(2)'s scope; the revocation procedure under s305A was not strictly followed but relief was refused because there was no ongoing effect; and no breach of natural justice occurred in relation to reporting to CCAMLR.
5 Oct 2007
The Court held that the challenge to the admission of hearsay statements in the disciplinary hearing was sufficiently arguable to meet the threshold for interim relief under s 8; accordingly interim orders were justified to preserve the applicant's prior security classification and to stay the continued suspension of privileges pending an expedited substantive hearing.
15 Feb 2007
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the grounds presented did not raise matters of general or public importance and there was no tenable basis to conclude a substantial miscarriage of justice would occur if leave were refused.