14 Sept 2020
Dismissal of the recall application on the basis that the Court of Appeal's reconsideration demonstrated the affidavit errors and deletions did not create a real risk of miscarriage of justice, the deleted material was not likely to have produced a favourable result for the applicant, and no issue of general or public importance arises to justify recalling the Supreme Court leave decision.
2 Dec 2019
Section 232(4)(a) requires assessing whether an identified error, irregularity or occurrence created a real risk the outcome was affected (i.e. a reasonable possibility of a different verdict). Applying that test, the Supreme Court held the new evidence (apartment manager testimony and MSD records) did not create such a real risk because it was at best evidence of opportunity, not definitive, and the defence theory of collusion and copycat allegations had already been fully ventilated to the jury; accordingly no miscarriage of justice arose and the appeal was dismissed.
13 Oct 2017
The Court held the propensity evidence was cross-admissible under Evidence Act s40 because the strong similarities (age of complainants, appellant's relationship to their mothers, sexual focus on breasts and subsequent contact suggesting contemplated ongoing relationship) gave substantial probative value which outweighed any unfair prejudice; alleged collusion was speculative and required exploration at trial, so severance was not required and the appeal against the District Court ruling fails.
16 Dec 2015
The application to withdraw the notice of abandonment was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide adequate reason to withdraw the abandonment and the proposed grounds were unsubstantiated, lacked general or public importance and had no real prospect of success; accordingly, even if withdrawal were permitted, leave to appeal would be refused.
21 Aug 2013
Having accepted the admitted breaches of ss 27 and 30 affecting the New Zealand market and having assessed seriousness, market value, duration, seniority, intention, potential gain, cooperation, admissions and comparable precedents (including the Australian penalty), the Court accepted the parties' negotiated penalty figures and imposed a pecuniary penalty of NZD 3,600,000 on Visy Board Pty Limited, ordered a NZD 50,000 costs contribution, and imposed a NZD 25,000 penalty on Mr Carroll, with a 48‑hour publication deferral to permit confidentiality applications.
18 Jun 2003
The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court's refusal to strike out because on the pleaded facts and given the possibility of exceptions (eg continuing misrepresentation or collusion) and unresolved factual disputes about accrual under Australian law, it was not plain and clear that the claim was time barred and therefore not a proper case for strike out at interlocutory stage.