New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

District court rules

Legal area

Court

14 Aug 2023

ICL CONSTRUCTION (2016) LIMITED v IAN ROEBUCK CRANE HIRE LIMITED [2023] NZCA 364

Citation

[2023] NZCA 364
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the challenge to the District Court's exercise of discretion under r 1.8(2) was not capable of bona fide and serious argument given ICL's failure to plead particulars, the prejudice to Roebuck, and the rules' objective to ensure just, speedy and inexpensive determination; no public or sufficient private interest justified further appeal over the relatively small sums involved.
22 Jun 2022

BLAIR v STREET, STREET, ENGLAND AND STREET [2022] NZHC 1476

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1476
Court

High Court

The recall application was dismissed because the matters raised were attempts to relitigate factual and legal issues already decided, did not meet the high 'very special reasons' threshold required to recall a judgment, and therefore any alleged errors should be corrected on appeal; accordingly the original judgment stands and recall is inappropriate.
4 Apr 2022

EA v RENNIE COX LAWYERS [2022] NZSC 37

Citation

[2022] NZSC 37
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the issues relied on were fact‑dependent (the Court of Appeal's finding that the proceeding was revived in August 2015), did not raise questions of general or public importance, and did not disclose an appearance of a miscarriage of justice; accordingly there was no proper basis to grant leave under s 74 of the Senior Courts Act 2016.
19 Aug 2019

Porter v Accident Compensation Corporation (Costs)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 105
Court

District Court

The appellant's appeal was struck out because s149 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 plainly prevented the appeal; accordingly the respondent, as successful party, was entitled to costs under District Court Rules Rule 14.2B and Schedule 4 category A, fixed at $4,262.50.
15 Aug 2018

BURROWS v THOMSON (No 2) [2018] NZHC 2095

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2095
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with the mandatory disclosure and reasoning requirements for without‑notice applications under r 7.16(3), permitting the District Court to dismiss the application without a hearing under r 7.39; there was no material establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias and confidentiality concerns could be managed by redaction or counsel‑only access, so no error of law or breach of natural justice occurred.
27 Mar 2018

Rosenberg v Accident Compensation Corporation (Costs)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 57
Court

District Court

The application was dismissed: Part 14 governs costs and disbursements, disbursements fall within that regime, and because costs are discretionary and the court had previously determined that costs were not an issue in these proceedings, the applicant's request for disbursements was refused.
16 Feb 2018

Dickson-Johansen v Accident Compensation Corporation (Costs on Appeal)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 36
Court

District Court

The Court held that District Court scale costs are an appropriate and adaptable basis for calculating costs in ACC appeals; applying Schedule 5 at a 2B level to this appeal the appellant was entitled to costs of $5,963 plus reasonable disbursements and an additional $50 disbursement from review; the Court adjusted the prior ‘normal award’ approach and certified specific time allocations for a 2B award.
25 Oct 2017

DINERS CLUB (NZ) LIMITED v THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2017] NZHC 2616 [25 October 2017]

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2616
Court

High Court

Section 120 of the CCCFA, read in light of its consumer‑protection purpose, permits a court to reopen an oppressive credit contract on its own motion in any proceedings; Rule 15.7 of the District Court Rules confers a discretion to seal default judgment for an undefended liquidated demand and does not oblige sealing in every case; when directing a formal proof the court must give succinct notice of the concerns to the creditor but need not provide extensive reasons at that stage.
25 Jul 2017

Hoeberechts v Accident Compensation Corporation (Costs)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 87
Court

District Court

The Court found the two trips to Auckland were necessary for compliance with the Court's request and that petrol costs (not the IRD mileage rate) are the appropriate measure; the appellant must produce receipts for petrol costs or, if receipts cannot be produced, the Court will reasonably halve the claimed mileage and award $204.40 in travel disbursements.
4 Nov 2015

Khan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 332
Court

District Court

Application dismissed because it was not made within a reasonable time under r 5(4), the alleged procedural irregularity did not automatically nullify the judgment, the applicant had full opportunity in the High Court and Court of Appeal which declined leave (binding on this Court), and the application amounted to an abuse of process; respondent awarded costs of $750.