New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Concurrent findings of fact

Legal area

Court

8 Dec 2023

TUARIKI JOHN EDWARD DELAMERE v YINGHENG LIU [2023] NZSC 163

Citation

[2023] NZSC 163
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave is dismissed because none of the proposed grounds meet the statutory criteria in s 74: the tikanga argument did not justify departure from normal practice where the applicant chose to be represented; the fraud and intention arguments are new, lack evidential foundation in the lower courts and are inappropriate for a second appeal; the clean hands doctrine does not apply to a breach of contract claim; and concurrent factual findings were upheld, so no matter of general or public importance or miscarriage of justice is shown.
23 May 2019

TERRY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 1131

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1131
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the application raised no issue of general or public importance and did not demonstrate a miscarriage of justice; the District Court properly upheld the Justices of the Peace's concurrent factual findings, addressed all claimed procedural and BORA issues and the statutory remedies for impoundment were available, so no basis for a second appeal existed.
14 May 2019

MUHAMMAD SHAMSUD_x001e_DEAN SAHU KHAN v MOHAMMED SHARIFF [2019] NZSC 47

Citation

[2019] NZSC 47
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the application raised no issue of general or public importance or commercial significance and there was no appearance of a substantial miscarriage of justice; the applicant sought merely to relitigate concurrent factual findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal.
13 Jun 2018

DAVID RAYMOND LEWIS v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZSC 51

Citation

[2018] NZSC 51
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the contested issue turned on interpretation of the health assessor's report and concurrent factual findings by the District Court and Court of Appeal that the report did address the statutory criterion, and this Court will not act as a second Court of Appeal in the absence of a risk of miscarriage of justice or a matter of broader public importance.
28 Jun 2017

JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS v R [2017] NZSC 98

Citation

[2017] NZSC 98
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the matter turned on factual issues now subject to concurrent findings of fact, did not raise a point of general or public importance, and did not disclose a miscarriage of justice; the applicant therefore failed to establish the innocence required for costs on the trial under s 5(2)(f).
2 Apr 2014

GFM v JAM [2014] NZSC 32

Citation

[2014] NZFLR 599
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal dismissed because the appeal raised no question of general or public importance and the Court of Appeal correctly applied the applicable principles (including s 2G(2) and authority in Burgess v Beaven) and made concurrent factual findings justifying valuation at the date of hearing and rejecting application of s 18C on the facts.
13 Jul 2010

DAVID PAUL HALFORD AND BLUE SKY HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AS TRUSTEE OF THE AUCKLAND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRUST V R F COUGHLAN & ASSOCIATES AND ANOR SC 35/2010

Citation

SC 35/2010
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because concurrent factual findings below established no negligence in preparation of plans and the applicants failed to show reliance on or causation by the practical completion certificates, so the grounds do not meet the criteria for leave.
29 Jun 2010

W & W V ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 48/2010

Citation

SC 48/2010
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicants' Limitation Act arguments depended on factual findings about incapacity and discoverability that had been rejected by concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal, and there was no justification for this Court to disturb those findings; accordingly the claims are time-barred.
26 Nov 2008

K V H HC AK CIV 2007-404-2244

Citation

openlaw-38d7a8b1_9be1_4998_b1f5_71028c528b83.pdf
Court

High Court

Application dismissed because it was inordinate (approximately 10 months) out of time with no application or satisfactory explanation for enlargement, and because the proposed grounds were predominantly factual with concurrent findings against the appellant and no arguable question of law or public importance to justify leave.
14 Aug 2008

PETER ROGER RENSHAW V MARTINE CLARE UNDERHILL CA CA188/2008

Citation

openlaw-3e8a14f9_9fad_40f1_ada9_5823c0d675d1.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant only challenged concurrent factual and credibility findings and did not raise any question of law under s93(1) capable of bona fide and serious argument; accordingly there was no basis to grant a second appeal.