New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Failure to comply with directions

Legal area

Court

5 Oct 2023

DAVEY v CARDINALI [2023] NZHC 2782

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2782
Court

High Court

Proceeding was categorised as band 2 overall; band C was not justified despite voluminous and disorganised filings because claimed 2C scale exceeded actual costs and threshold for 'comparatively large' time was not met. A 2B scale was applied to all steps. An uplift was not justified for refusal to accept the 'walk‑away' settlement offer, but a 20% uplift was justified for steps after the 8/9 March 2023 case management direction due to marked failures to comply with directions. An order requiring costs to be paid directly from the plaintiff's estate shares was declined because it would confer…
19 Oct 2022

GWIZO v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 2717

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2717
Court

High Court

The Tribunal correctly found the proceeding was an abuse of process because the appellant consistently and deliberately failed to comply with an unambiguous direction to file an amended statement of claim over a period exceeding 15 months, demonstrating lack of intention to pursue the claim conscientiously; in all the circumstances the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion to strike out the proceeding.
27 Nov 2019

YINGLING v GIFFORD (COSTS) [2019] NZHC 3111

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3111
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion, found the plaintiff's claimed wasted costs and 50% uplift were exaggerated, that the plaintiff contributed to delay by failing to comply with directions, and therefore only modest wasted costs were appropriate; awarded $2,000 to the plaintiff payable by the first defendant.
2 Jun 2015

Tohia v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 141
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant made no contact and failed to comply with directions, justifying dismissal for failure to prosecute.
19 May 2009

DOWDEN V FRITZ HC AK CIV-2009-404-002752

Citation

openlaw-d7d33371_bee4_483f_a484_c6c4ef2d5db6.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the appeal was filed well outside the statutory time limit, the appellant failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay, the proposed appeal lacked merit and the appellant's conduct amounted to abuse of process; refusal to extend time was a proper exercise of the Court's discretion.
30 Jun 2008

B V B HC AK CIV-2007-404-004717

Citation

openlaw-fd847550_47f1_4ed8_8896_ab605a2459ec.pdf
Court

High Court

Mr B failed to comply with a direction to file company accounts and did not explain the omission, causing unnecessary preparation by Mrs B's counsel; that conduct justified a 10% increase on the 2B costs scale. However, Mr B's reliance on authority and his response to the Calderbank offer did not by themselves justify increased costs. A deduction was warranted for the first case management conference appearance; remaining calculation of costs is to be carried out by counsel or submitted by memorandum.
27 Jun 2008

Brown v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 133
Court

District Court

Because the appellant and her solicitor failed to take any positive steps to prosecute the appeal, failed to comply with the Directions Order and did not communicate or explain the default, the appeal was properly dismissed under section 161(3)(b) of the Act.
9 Jun 2005

McKenzie v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2005] NZACC 171
Court

District Court

The appeal was struck out because the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with court directions and final time limits, filed no submissions and did not attend the final hearing, warranting dismissal for want of prosecution under section 161(3B) and the court's case management powers.