29 Nov 2023
No error or irregularity in counsel or the District Court was established that created a real risk of miscarriage of justice; the guilty plea was properly retained, Police acted within statutory authority regarding breath and blood testing, and the appellant's identity/sovereign citizen arguments have no legal effect; appeal dismissed.
3 Aug 2023
Further evidence was refused because the videos and plans were not fresh, not cogent and could have been produced earlier; the appeal disclosed no reasonably arguable point on the central factual findings (that the leak was disclosed, that advice to vacate was standard and not in bad faith, and that there was no evidence of overcharging) and amounted to an abuse of process and vexatious litigation; failure to serve caused prejudice but did not alone justify strike out; stay of the costs order was refused because the appellant did not show his appeal would be rendered nugatory by payment.
31 Jul 2023
Because Police and Crown disclosure obligations were comprehensively and belatedly breached producing substantial late disclosure (including material capable of affecting key evidence), the court found a reasonable apprehension of miscarriage of justice and that it was highly expedient for the ends of justice to discharge the jury under s22(3)(a) of the Juries Act 1981; the trial was aborted and will be rescheduled.
8 May 2023
The Court approved the scheme because statutory requirements including s236 and s236A were satisfied, the interest classes were properly constituted, disclosure to shareholders was adequate, the required majorities voted in favour, there was no evidence of coercion or prejudice to shareholders or creditors, and the consideration was within the independent adviser valuation range and fair and equitable to shareholders.
1 May 2023
Court found Commissioner breached s25(d) Bill of Rights by compelling the plaintiff to participate in the TAA civil disputes process (NOPA and GST returns) while contemplating prosecution and then later filing charges, that the breach was highly reckless and causative of plaintiff's loss, the stay was an insufficient remedy, and damages (a declaration, reimbursement of legal costs and modest emotional harm award) were appropriate.
19 Aug 2022
The Court held that the DLCRO rightly refused recusal on the grounds advanced by the applicant (those grounds were misconceived under the Saxmere test and the statutory framework), but the DLCRO erred by failing to respond to properly formulated disclosure requests and acted unreasonably by attempting to deprive the applicant of an oral hearing previously scheduled, thereby breaching the applicant's legitimate expectations; the Court directed disclosure and set procedural steps to protect fairness of the reviews.
16 Aug 2022
The Court declined to order apportionment of common costs across the separate Cridge, White and Waitākere proceedings because they are distinct, separately managed cases in different registries with different parties and evidence; the High Court Rules provide the appropriate framework for costs and the plaintiffs failed to show this case is an apt vehicle for a novel common-cost apportionment rule. Separately, the Court awarded increased costs under r14.6(3)(a) for discovery, witness brief preparation and trial preparation as the complexity and scale of the litigation rendered band C allocati…
13 Jul 2022
The Court exercised its discretion under s 8 CCCA to award each successful respondent (Mr S and Mr Singh) $7,500 as a contribution to costs because, although the appeals were not highly complex, they raised issues of public importance about the scope of awards under s 364 CPA and ss 5 and 13 CCCA warranting an above‑scale award; the appeals were properly defended and awards above the statutory scale were desirable in the circumstances.
28 Jun 2022
NTL and NEW admitted breaches of the Takeovers Code: NTL made a selective offer in breach of r 20 and failed to disclose associates in breach of r 44(1)(d)(i); NEW failed to disclose director/associate holdings in breach of r 46(1)(a). Declarations of contravention were entered and, applying a sentencing-style methodology with a $2.1–$2.5m starting range discounted 35% for cooperation and lack of prior offending, the Court imposed a $1.5 million pecuniary penalty on NTL, payable to the Crown and to be applied first to the Panel's actual costs; no costs order between parties.
13 Jun 2022
Although the threshold for consolidation under r 10.12(a)/(b) was met for the Auckland and Christchurch proceedings because of shared factual and legal questions (notably the remuneration review and distribution of settlement proceeds), the Court exercised its discretion against consolidation due to complexity, number of unrelated parties in the Christchurch file, risk of delay and inefficiency, disclosure/confidentiality complications and differing hearing formats; instead the Court stayed the Christchurch remuneration application pending final resolution of the Auckland proceeding and set a…