New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extensions of time

Legal area

Court

13 Jun 2022

DHC ASSSETS LTD v ANTONY IVO ARNERICH [2022] NZHC 1381

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1381
Court

High Court

The High Court held that NZS 3910:2003 provisions granting entitlement to extensions of time and to recover time-related costs where delays are the net effect of variations govern the parties' bargain despite apparently inconsistent wording in the bespoke CPA; the contractor (DHC/CCL) was entitled to recover time-related costs of $191,386.98 plus GST and contractual interest at 12.4% compounding monthly on both the adjudicated sums and the amounts unreasonably deducted, interest continuing until payment; the adjudicator's determinations on extensions and quantum were binding for present purpo…
5 May 2022

PRESCOTT v THOMPSON [2022] NZCA 163

Citation

[2022] NZCA 163
Court

Court of Appeal

The applicant was not legally aided in respect of the specified appeals so s 45(2) did not bar a costs order; having found the applicant's arguments unmeritorious and that the respondent incurred unnecessary costs, the Court ordered costs of $5,511.50 in favour of the respondent, including increased/indemnity costs of $1,687.50.
27 Sept 2019

DHC ASSETS LTD v ARNERICH [2019] NZHC 1695

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1695
Court

High Court

The defendant, as sole director, breached s131 by authorising and procuring distributions and release of retention funds while DHC was a contingent/unpaid creditor and its claims remained live and pursueable under the contract's dispute procedures; the distributions were made without proper regard to creditor interests and notwithstanding that the engineer's determinations were not independent or final and dispute resolution remained available. Under s301(1)(c) the court ordered the director to pay the creditor directly the adjudicated sum of NZD 367,768.12 with contractual interest, and cost…
29 May 2018

LEON DELSHANNON TURNER v R [2018] NZCA 175

Citation

[2018] NZCA 175
Court

Court of Appeal

Extensions of time to appeal were granted but all appeals were dismissed because trial counsel acted within instructions and made reasonable tactical choices, identification and cumulative circumstantial evidence were sufficient to support convictions, and sentencing decisions and starting points were within established ranges and not manifestly excessive.
30 Nov 2015

Gamble v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 358
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to file submissions by the court‑directed deadline despite multiple notices and an extension, leaving no basis for the appeal to proceed.
14 Jul 2014

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON v WAYNE SEYMOUR CHAPMAN [2014] NZSC 90

Citation

[2014] NZSC 90
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court declined the application for review because the course proposed by Glazebrook J—that the applicant apply for recall of the Court of Appeal judgment—was sensible and likely the most expeditious way to resolve the underlying dispute over whether the appeal had been deemed abandoned, making the adjournment appropriate.
1 May 2014

JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZSC 46

Citation

[2014] NZSC 46
Court

Supreme Court

The Court dismissed the recall application: the undisclosed abandonment of the Court of Appeal appeals did not justify recall or amendment because the Supreme Court could not extend the r 43 time limits and resetting the security date would not revive appeals already deemed abandoned.
28 Jun 2013

COLLINS v NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL [2013] NZHC 1595

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1595
Court

High Court

The application for an extension of time to file and serve reply evidence was refused because the applicants failed to identify what strictly-in-reply evidence would be adduced and appeared to seek a merits review rather than a narrow judicial review; the established timetable was adequate and any further extension must be the subject of a formal application supported by a solicitor's affidavit specifying will-say evidence, its relevance and reasons it could not be obtained in time.
27 Feb 2013

Blyth v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 52
Court

District Court

The court granted a generous final extension to 6 September 2013 for the appellant to lodge submissions, principally medical evidence, and held that failure to file by that deadline will demonstrate absence of due diligence and justify dismissal for want of prosecution under r 14.24 District Courts Rules 2013.
14 Sept 2001

Cook v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2001] NZACC 259
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to file required submissions despite multiple extensions, deadlines and explicit warnings that the file would be placed before a judge who might strike the appeal out.