New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

High court rules r 20.13

Legal area

Court

12 Sept 2019

HUNTER v ROSS [2019] NZHC 2289

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2289
Court

High Court

Rule 20.13(6) deferral applies only while an initial application for legal aid remains undetermined; rights of reconsideration, tribunal review or appellate review do not extend an automatic deferral. The court retains discretion under r 20.13(2) to dispense with security but no material showed that discretion should be exercised here; security calculated under r 20.13(3) is fixed at $1,115 and must be paid by 4pm 16 September 2019, with specified consequences if not paid.
16 Apr 2013

TUCHOLSKI V DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL HC DUN CIV 2013-412-000088

Citation

openlaw-0b550a0a_28e1_48c8_9364_8d4f37a118a3.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court reinstated the appeal despite the deeming provision in s 74 because the failure to comply with the security order was short lived, was promptly remedied once discovered, and refusal to reinstate would produce a miscarriage of justice; the respondent was entitled to costs on the standard basis but not indemnity, and payment of those costs was to be held in court pending final determination with leave to the parties to make submissions on timing.
16 Aug 2012

SIEMER V HERON & ORS HC AK CIV 2012-404-004128

Citation

openlaw-d8c12ee9_e60a_4633_9742_e3bc557c39c6.pdf
Court

High Court

Under r 20.13(2) the Court must fix security for costs for non‑legally aided appellants unless interests of justice require otherwise; no special circumstances were shown here, the appellant's means affidavit was inadequate and the respondents' interest in protection from further uncompensated costs outweighed the appellant's claim, therefore security was fixed and quantified under r 20.13(3).
20 Feb 2009

BRIGHT V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2008-404-8468

Citation

openlaw-0ef56e49_2d30_4888_abcd_ffb93749474b.pdf
Court

High Court

Security for costs of $800 was ordered because rule 20.13 creates a prima facie requirement for security, the appeal was assessed as weak on the clear statutory provisions (s12 and s60 LG(R)A 2002) and the appellant was not impecunious (owns unencumbered home); therefore it was not in the interests of justice to dispense with security.

New Zealand Case Law

HUNTER v ROSS [2019] NZHC 2289

TUCHOLSKI V DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL HC DUN CIV 2013-412-000088

SIEMER V HERON & ORS HC AK CIV 2012-404-004128

BRIGHT V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2008-404-8468