New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Change of venue

Legal area

Court

17 Mar 2020

PATERSON v LEPIONKA & COMPANY INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2020] NZHC 530

Citation

[2020] NZHC 530
Court

High Court

The plaintiff was entitled to commence the proceeding in Napier because he resides in Hawkes Bay when in New Zealand and material parts of the causes of action arose in Hawkes Bay; the defendants' convenience and related litigation factors did not outweigh that entitlement, so the application to transfer venue was declined and interlocutory applications ordered to be set down promptly.
5 Aug 2019

R v BRENTON HARRISON TARRANT [2019] NZHC 1886

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1886
Court

High Court

Court is satisfied ACC holds the requested material and that it appears relevant to the defendant's change of venue application; accordingly the Court made mandatory directions under s26 requiring ACC to provide the material to the Court for a s24 hearing.
13 Aug 2012

MOGILIN & Anor V JO & Anor HC AK CIV-2011-404-001584

Citation

openlaw-04aa06bf_2faf_43b7_a272_bb53b2bb62b1.pdf
Court

High Court

Court dismissed most of the plaintiffs' applications for particular discovery for lack of sufficient grounds to believe undisclosed relevant documents existed, but directed limited discovery relating to documents about the yacht (notably insurance) and ordered defendants to supply already-collected builder documents; ordered security for costs of NZD 25,000 payable in two tranches, transferred the proceedings to the Christchurch registry, dismissed contempt proceedings, and directed a case management conference and costs memoranda.
24 Nov 2011

SMAIL V R SC 104/2011

Citation

SC 104/2011
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court was satisfied the Court of Appeal correctly assessed the publicity and venue issues, the Weatherston trial was not sufficiently similar or recent to taint the jury, and the trial judge's empanelling, suppression steps and directions rendered it not arguable that a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred.
9 Jun 2010

HEADLEY V R SC 31/2010

Citation

SC 31/2010
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal dismissed because there was no evidence the venue refusal was improper, the Court of Appeal's assessment was sound, the proposed appeal lacked prospect of success, and no miscarriage of justice was shown given absence of any realistic defence.
8 Apr 2010

GILBERT WALKER V L M SCOTT HC AK CIV 2008-404-8353

Citation

openlaw-07a567c9_f8cc_4a03_bbf4_f48e5c19caaf.pdf
Court

High Court

Adjournment was declined because the alleged fraud was not newly discovered nor relevant to the fee dispute, the Law Society process did not bar determination of liability, the defendant had engaged in repeated delay and contrived difficulties obtaining counsel, and the balance of justice favored enforcing the existing fixture; leave was granted for counsel to withdraw and strict timetable and unless orders were imposed and the venue retained in Auckland.
23 Jun 2009

HENRY KOIA V MINISTER IN CHARGE OF TREATY OF WAITANGI NEGOTIATIONS AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2008-485-2511

Citation

openlaw-eb8c84f1_119e_4b52_ab24_1429dc199d5f.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for change of venue was dismissed because these are judicial review proceedings where evidence is by affidavit, no application for cross-examination had been made, and therefore convenience of witnesses in Gisborne was irrelevant; the application was misconceived.
21 Apr 2009

BODY CORPORATE 27017 AND ANOR V WENSLEY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED AND ANOR HC INV CIV 2007 425 712

Citation

openlaw-ad3f8214_afc5_4ea8_b763_d0251f75a1d6.pdf
Court

High Court

The applicant failed to discharge the onus to show that transfer to Christchurch would result in greater fairness or convenience. Balancing the convenience of the larger number of parties favouring Christchurch against fairness to local parties and a small defendant, and given unresolved interlocutory matters and that the case was not ready for a firm November trial, the court concluded the balance marginally favoured preserving Invercargill as the trial venue.
28 May 2007

CULLEN V HEALTH PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL HC AK CIV-

Citation

openlaw-809a515d_673b_47d1_af96_264d78c05b77.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court directed that the statutory appeal and associated interlocutory judicial review/common law applications be transferred to and heard in Auckland, ordered the District Court appeal to be effectively stayed pending this Court's directions, directed a conjoint hearing of interlocutory stages, and imposed a timetable for counsel to file memoranda and fix a two‑day fixture.
20 Jul 2006

GILLIES V R SC 35/2006

Citation

SC 35/2006
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the proposed grounds do not meet s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003: no arguable miscarriage from lack of a change of venue and no conflict of authority or necessity to revisit the Court of Appeal's evidential assessment regarding jury directions; the trial judge fairly put the defence to the jury on the evidence.