20 Sept 2023
The recall application was dismissed because the applicant did not identify any of the limited established grounds for recall, merely rehashed prior arguments and unsubstantiated procedural complaints, and failed to show any new law, fact, or very special reason to disturb the earlier judgment.
16 Sept 2020
Application dismissed because applicant failed to dispel the suspicions arising from the deceased's unknown level of English comprehension and the applicant's undermined credibility (including evidence of forgery); the Court was not satisfied the document expressed the deceased's testamentary intentions within the meaning of s14 Wills Act 2007.
4 Oct 2019
The applicant established a reasonably arguable case and there was no compelling contemporaneous evidence demonstrating forgery or falsehood such that the applicant's evidence could be discounted; accordingly the caveats were to be sustained and not lapse, conditional on the applicant filing and serving proceedings to enforce his claimed interest within 15 working days.
28 Nov 2014
Because the applicant denied execution of the term loan agreement and asserted forgery, creating a genuine, unresolved, and serious dispute as to whether the document and debt are genuine that could not be resolved on the affidavit material before the Court, the statutory demand had to be set aside; ancillary procedural matters (leave to rely on earlier affidavit, policing referral) did not alter that conclusion.
6 Aug 2008
Court held plaintiff had standing: the nomination combined with conduct and s4 Contracts (Privity) Act meant the nominee's rights could be enforced; the assignment to plaintiff was valid and took effect from notice (11 January 2008) after consideration was paid, so plaintiff could sue. However, the defendant raised a tenable factual defence (alleged forgery/existence of an earlier agreement and disputed alterations) that could not be resolved on affidavits alone; accordingly the summary judgment application was adjourned to permit forensic handwriting examination and further hearing.
15 May 2008
Given Scotia's contractual entitlement to indemnity costs and the plaintiffs' conduct (notably failure to comply with timetable orders and serious allegations of forgery), the Court exercised its discretion under High Court Rule 48C(4)(e) and ordered Waimauri entitled to indemnity costs in relation to Scotia's interim injunction application, while directing costs for the defendants' security for costs application be assessed on a 2B basis and limiting indemnity recovery to attendances related to the injunction application.
5 Oct 2007
Strike-out application dismissed because defendants did not establish inordinate, inexcusable delay or serious prejudice and the pleadings disclosed a tenable cause of action; the matter must proceed subject to a strict timetable with an 'unless' dismissal if the plaintiff fails to file signed briefs by the appointed date; defendants may apply separately for security for costs.