9 Aug 2023
The notice of appeal was struck out in part because the appeal against the Family Court's 9 May 2023 decision was filed out of time (r 20.5 and r 20.4(2)(b)) and constituted an abuse of process; the remainder of the notice (relating to the 30 June 2023 decision) is stayed until the appellant files an amended notice complying with r 20.9(1) and omitting references to the 9 May decision.
6 Mar 2023
An appeal against District Court directions under s 124 must comply with High Court Rules Part 20 (including filing a notice of appeal that meets r 20.9 and serving it per r 20.6); initiating an appeal in the High Court that bypasses these mandatory procedural requirements is plainly an abuse of process and the court may stay the proceeding under rr 5.35A/B until proper compliance occurs.
14 Apr 2021
Leave to file the out-of-time counterclaim was granted because the proposed counterclaim raised matters directly relevant to the statement of claim, would not broaden discovery or increase hearing time, and no rule in Part 18 or r18.14A(2) barred such a counterclaim; case management and efficiency justified granting leave.
24 Dec 2020
The Court held that the 22 December 2020 judgment would not be recalled immediately; interim suppression orders remain in force because they were not time-limited and the proceedings are not concluded; the applicant must file a formal application and supporting affidavit complying with HCR 7.19/7.20 by 18 January 2021 with a synopsis by 26 January 2021; the matter is set for a two-hour hearing in the first week of February 2021 to determine recall and any final suppression/sealing orders, applying the limited grounds for recall from Horowhenua County v Nash (No.2).
30 Sept 2020
The statement of claim was struck out because it was an abuse of process and disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action: the pleadings lacked required particularity and factual basis for serious allegations, amounted to a collateral attack on judicial decisions, and there is no statutory or implied power permitting the executive respondents to investigate or discipline court officers for decisions made in the exercise of judicial functions; appropriate remedies lie under r2.11 and the court's inherent jurisdiction, not by the executive.
29 Jul 2020
Substantial non-payment by CBI of the agreed purchase price and related instalments constituted breach of an essential term permitting cancellation of the SPA; PRS validly served notice and cancelled the SPA; the second affidavit demonstrated substantial compliance with HCR and was not fatal; title to the chattels did not pass because transfer was subject to grant of a GSA which never occurred; CBI failed to establish a plausible insolvency set-off under s 310 to defeat PRS's claim; therefore summary judgment was appropriate to declare cancellation and order delivery of the chattels.
20 Nov 2019
The proceeding was struck out under r 7.48(2)(a) because the plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with the High Court Rules and prior court directions, failed to plead a cognisable basis to set aside the Property Law Act notice or restrain a mortgagee sale, failed to name all trustees, failed to provide initial disclosure, and failed to attend hearings after multiple opportunities to remedy defects.
19 Jul 2019
The defendant's pleaded affirmative defences of truth and honest opinion are deficient because they fail to identify which statutory limb is relied on, fail to link pleaded facts to the defamatory meanings advanced by the plaintiff, and contain improper particulars; accordingly those defences cannot succeed and will be struck out unless properly repleaded in compliance with the Defamation Act and High Court Rules by a specified date, with costs reserved.
19 Jun 2019
Leave to appeal was declined because the alleged procedural irregularities were not tenable or sufficiently material to warrant setting aside the judgment, the application was an indirect attempt to challenge the substantive merits which are the subject of an extant appeal as of right, and it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave.
9 Apr 2019
The Court exercised its discretion under rr 1.5 and 1.9 to waive strict compliance with r 5.6 given the settlement terms authorising an escrowed copy, acceptance of service, and the absence of any defence; the electronically filed executed Notice was therefore effective under r 15.16 and entitled the plaintiff to judgment for the admitted debt plus contractual interest recoverable under s 22 of the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016.