New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enlargement of time

Legal area

Court

3 May 2023

PRESCOTT v MEAD [2023] NZHC 1042

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1042
Court

High Court

Because the judgment debtor had communicated with the process server and arranged for service to occur on 31 March 2023 the substituted service application was premature; the creditors were entitled to costs for the adjudication application and limited costs for attendance and memorandum (reduced to 0.2 day each) but not for the substituted service application; total costs of $2,890.00 were ordered payable by the judgment debtor to the judgment creditors, inclusive of disbursements.
9 Mar 2023

ELIAHU v ELIAHU [2023] NZHC 459

Citation

[2023] NZHC 459
Court

High Court

The Registrar erred by allowing cost items (items 30, 32, 33 and 33B of Schedule 3) that apply to affidavit hearings when the dispute concerned an interlocutory contempt/enforcement application for which items 22–29 apply; accordingly the sealed costs order overstated recoverable costs, and the Court must rescind and direct resealing of the costs order in the corrected amount ($10,277.00 plus disbursements $160.00). The Court has jurisdiction to review the Registrar's costs determination and enlarged time to bring the review.
7 Mar 2014

JEC NO 2 LTD v OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE [2014] NZHC 394

Citation

[2014] NZHC 394
Court

High Court

The application for enlargement of time was refused and the consequent application for leave to appeal and for a stay were denied; the judge found that the proper route for challenge to the refusal to enlarge time is appeal to the Court of Appeal as of right under s 66 of the Judicature Act 1908, and that no stay should be granted while the Official Assignee proceeds with the contractual sale provided the OA holds the sale proceeds in trust pending agreement or further order.
15 Mar 2010

EFFECTIVE ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOR V ECOCOVER LIMITED AND ANOR HC ROT CIV-2009-404-005331

Citation

openlaw-839925f0_84d3_4f86_9bc3_5d561718a62b.pdf
Court

High Court

The application to transfer was refused because, although the counterclaim exceeded the District Court monetary limit, the underlying factual and legal issues were straightforward and suitable for determination in the District Court; transfer would likely increase delay given High Court fixture backlogs and there were no public interest or complexity factors sufficient to justify exercising the discretion to transfer or to enlarge time.
6 Jul 2009

FOSTER V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT HC CIV 2008-485-2395

Citation

openlaw-6130fc41_2090_488c_bc40_a969cc29d379.pdf
Court

High Court

Time to file was enlarged because the applicant acted without legal advice and reasonably misunderstood procedure, but leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to raise any question of law of general or public importance and his complaint about benefit adequacy is not justiciable; the decision to provide a recoverable advance rather than a non-recoverable grant involved no error of law.
5 Sept 2008

NGATI MURIWAI HAPU INC V WHAKATOHEA MAORI TRUST BOARD INCORPORATED AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2007-463-30

Citation

openlaw-c48d7ba9_90b4_474c_aef1_5aa5d0808ad1.pdf
Court

High Court

In the exercise of discretion the Court declined to award increased or indemnity costs under r 48C because the plaintiff's procedural errors were not of sufficient gravity; the Associate Judge's costs award stands; scale costs for the enlargement of time commence at that application with .7 of a day (band B) for each defendant; costs for the review and defended hearing are awarded on a 2B basis with allowance for second counsel for the second defendant.
16 Nov 2007

WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES V THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER CA CA233/07

Citation

openlaw-5886c6b7_7424_454e_bacb_f4e1b2d3bd48.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The High Court judge did not err in granting the enlargement of time: given the minimal delay, absence of prejudice, pendency of a related review application and the risk of further interlocutory delay, a practical exercise of discretion to enlarge time was available and not plainly wrong; appeal dismissed and costs awarded to respondent.
18 Oct 2006

ARWIN TRADING V PENDARVES EXPORT AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-1792

Citation

openlaw-91da849a_a1dc_49b7_a1c4_de8efa451dc1.pdf
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the Judge did not err in law: an application to join a counterclaim defendant is interlocutory (thus s 39 did not preclude joinder without prior service), the Court had power under DCR 103 (and in the circumstances under DCR 173) to order joinder, and it was open to the Judge to order substituted service on the appellant's solicitor as reasonably likely to bring notice to the absent proposed defendant.