9 Mar 2018
The application for judicial review was dismissed because delay of over six years amounted to an abuse of the Court's process; the first respondent was entitled to costs assessed on a Category 2B basis of $11,413; costs for the later February 2018 memorandum were disallowed.
8 Dec 2017
The application is dismissed because (1) the District Court appeal had already addressed and rejected the complaint, giving rise to res judicata; (2) the counterclaim was properly before the Disputes Tribunal (stamped and fully argued) and non-payment of the filing fee did not invalidate it; and (3) the applicant's inordinate delay in bringing the proceeding amounted to an abuse of the Court's process.
28 Jul 2017
The strike-out application is dismissed because, despite pleading deficiencies, a kernel of a potentially pleadable claim exists and the matter should be re-pleaded once more; however, credible evidence of the plaintiff's impecuniosity combined with repeated non-compliance justifies a modest, calibrated security for costs to be paid ($10,000) and strict re-pleading directions, failure of which will permit a further strike-out application.
5 Apr 2016
The application for a stay was refused because the defendant failed to show a meritorious case for a stay: the Court was satisfied there will be a South African costs award of at least c.8 million rand comparable to the NZ$552,122 costs order, the plaintiff's undertaking to set-off is effective, and the defendant's conduct is delaying South African taxation; accordingly costs are payable on filing and service of the plaintiff's undertaking.
9 Dec 2013
The lack of mutuality/identity of parties between the District Court proceeding and the proposed s 174 oppression proceedings was fatal to an equitable set-off; the proposed s 174 claim would be brought by the trustees of the family trust not by Mr Walker, there are no rare circumstances justifying waiver of mutuality, the issue is fact-specific and settled law, and delay and failure to prosecute the proposed proceedings make leave inappropriate.
9 Sept 2011
Threshold satisfied: Trust will be unable to pay the Bank's costs if unsuccessful. On interlocutory assessment the Trust's substantive claim faced substantial hurdles (conflict of evidence, bank's documented practice requiring written loan offers, conditionality of alleged promises, weak Fair Trading Act cause). The Trust's impecuniosity was not primarily caused by the Bank but by market falls and delay; proceedings appear to have been issued to forestall recovery. Accordingly it was just to order security for costs. Quantum set at NZD 17,500 as a realistic but not oppressive contribution tow…
25 Mar 2010
The appellant had prolonged, unexplained delays in providing security for costs and pursuing legal aid alternatives; there was no satisfactory explanation for why contingency of legal aid refusal was not addressed or alternative security arranged; under r 43 the appeal is to be treated as abandoned where not pursued, therefore the application for adjournment was declined and the appeal treated as abandoned.
8 Apr 2009
The adjournment was refused because defendants had engaged in repeated delaying conduct (multiple changes of solicitors, late access to files, reliance on parallel Australian proceedings as a pretext), their asserted need for more preparation was unjustified given competent counsel could prepare within the remaining time, and the plaintiff's right to its day in court outweighed the defendants' convenience; indemnity costs and debarment conditions were warranted to prevent further delay.