27 Jul 2020
The Court exercised its broad discretion under r 5.73 to grant a six month extension because the plaintiff responsibly delayed service pending the outcome of an authoritative appeal (Calver) that is likely to determine whether her right to sue exists; granting the extension avoids unnecessary litigation and potential costs exposure with no evident prejudice to the defendant.
30 Oct 2018
The court restored Holmes Fire and Safety Ltd to the register because the applicant demonstrated a genuine, non-frivolous claim pursued in good faith and the balance of public and private disadvantages made restoration just and equitable; the court granted an extension for service but refused to pre-emptively deem proceedings to have been brought on 1 September 2016, leaving limitation and policy coverage issues for the substantive proceeding.
13 Jul 2018
The Court held that the Building Act 10-year longstop applies to contribution claims; while Carter Holt's delay in serving third party notices was inordinate, the Councils did not establish sufficient prejudice to justify striking out the bulk of the claims; deficient particulars should be remedied by an order for further particulars rather than wholesale strike out; a limited number of contribution claims that were clearly time-barred were struck out; Carter Holt was granted an extension of time to serve third party notices; overall costs were awarded to the Councils but reduced to reflect p…
13 Jul 2016
Court found plaintiffs engaged in improper conduct by failing to disclose material facts to the court in ex parte applications (notably that Thomson Wilson were involved in settlement negotiations for other interests and that settlement would not resolve issues as to Thomson Wilson). However, despite that improper obtaining of the interlocutory extensions under r 7.51, the Judge exercised discretion not to rescind because the prejudice to plaintiffs (loss of cause by operation of limitation if extensions were rescinded) outweighed the speculative and limited prejudice to Thomson Wilson; accor…
2 Mar 2016
Although further disclosure would have been preferable, the Court concluded plaintiffs had legitimate strategic reasons to withhold service to pursue settlement to save the farm, the alleged non‑disclosures did not materially mislead the Judge into making the extension orders nor cause sufficient prejudice to the third defendants, and therefore the rescission applications must be dismissed; the ex parte extension orders stand.
11 Jun 2010
The applicants failed to serve the Rule 2.3 review application within the prescribed time and provided no adequate explanation for the service delay; the application lacked merit and amounted to an attempt to relitigate matters already finally dealt with, so no extension of time should be granted, the review is dismissed and the defendant is entitled to costs of $750.