New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Failure to prosecute

Legal area

Court

15 Jun 2023

BARTON (DECEASED) v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND ORS [2023] NZCA 237

Citation

[2023] NZCA 237
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court struck out the appeal under r 44A(1) because the deceased appellant's personal representatives failed to advise the Court whether they intended to continue the appeal, thereby failing to prosecute the appeal with due diligence and dispatch; given the prolonged delays and the nature of the proceedings, striking out was in the interests of justice.
8 Mar 2023

MIAH v THE PARK HOMES LIMITED [2023] NZCA 47

Citation

[2023] NZCA 47
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was struck out under r 44A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 because the appellant failed to comply with the Court's timetable and failed to prosecute the appeal diligently; the respondent was awarded costs on a standard appeal band A basis.
1 Dec 2022

CHENG v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2022] NZCA 589

Citation

[2022] NZCA 589
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is struck out because the appellant failed to pay the security for costs of $14,120 by the court‑directed due date and failed to provide verified evidence of impecuniosity to justify dispensing with security; under r 37(1) non‑payment mandates strike out and the Court granted the second respondent's strike‑out application.
13 Jun 2022

TAMAKA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 1383

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1383
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed because there was no error apparent on the face of the record and the appellant, after counsel withdrew for lack of instructions, failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal despite being warned; that silence justified the inference he did not wish to pursue the appeal.
19 May 2022

KURA v R [2022] NZCA 196

Citation

[2022] NZCA 196
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal out of time was declined because the appeal was filed 795 working days late, the applicant repeatedly failed to comply with court directions and a formal notice, and no reasonable explanation was provided; under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 the court properly exercised its discretion to refuse leave and thereby dispose of the appeal.
12 Apr 2021

TAKIAHO v R [2021] NZCA 107

Citation

[2021] NZCA 107
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with multiple court timetabling directions and a formal notice to file an affidavit, waiver of privilege and witness statements, provided no reasonable explanation, and therefore the Court properly exercised its power under s 338(1) Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to dismiss the appeal.
2 Mar 2021

ANDREASSEND v LIANG [2021] NZHC 337

Citation

[2021] NZHC 337
Court

High Court

The proceeding was dismissed under r 10.8 High Court Rules because the plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with multiple court orders, failed to file required evidence and documents, and failed to appear at the scheduled hearing despite warnings and opportunity; dismissal and costs on a 2B basis were proportionate and in the interests of justice, and the dismissal extends to the related proceedings set down for the same hearing.
30 Jun 2020

UNDERHILL & ANOR v COCA-COLA AMATIL (NZ) LTD [2020] NZCA 267

Citation

[2020] NZCA 267
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was struck out because the appellants persistently failed to comply with the procedural conditions imposed when time was extended and failed to prosecute the appeal with due diligence, justifying strike out under r 44A(1)(a) and (b) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.
24 Jun 2020

RUSSELL v AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2020] NZCA 250

Citation

[2020] NZCA 250
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was struck out under r 44A(1) because the appellant failed to pay security for costs as directed and failed to prosecute the appeal with due diligence, which made it unfair to the respondent; no costs were ordered because the strike out was on the Court's own initiative.
24 Apr 2020

FARAH v R [2020] NZCA 118

Citation

[2020] NZCA 118
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed under s 338 because the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with timetabling directions, did not apply for legal aid nor indicate self-representation, could not be contacted despite registry attempts, and missed the final deadline before COVID‑19 restrictions so those restrictions do not excuse the default.