New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interlocutory applications

Legal area

Court

4 Dec 2023

RESSELS v SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LTD [2023] NZCA 614

Citation

[2023] NZCA 614
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the decision under challenge was interlocutory and required leave under s 56(5); joinder after commencement is governed by r 4.56, and the applicant failed to show an arguable basis that r 4.56(b) was satisfied (the applicant was not necessary to adjudicate and settle all questions in the existing proceeding), so no reasonable prospect of success on appeal existed.
30 Nov 2023

DAVID CHARLES RAE v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2023] NZSC 156

Citation

[2023] NZSC 156
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held it has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a Court of Appeal decision declining to recall a civil judgment and s74(4) should not be read to preclude such appeals where 'interlocutory application' in s74(4) is construed contextually to exclude recall applications; however, in practice leave should ordinarily be sought against the substantive judgment because recall issues can usually be addressed on substantive appeal; having granted extension of time and leave, the Court found the factual errors in the Court of Appeal's substantive judgment were not material to warra…
13 Oct 2023

SAX v McMILLAN [2023] NZHC 2866

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2866
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal is refused because the applicant did not identify any arguable error of law or fact of sufficient importance to meet the high threshold under ss 56 and 60; there were no exceptional circumstances to waive security for costs, the applicant's lay status increased complexity and costs, and the interests of justice do not favour granting leave.
16 Aug 2023

LI v YEUNG [2023] NZHC 2210

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2210
Court

High Court

Plaintiffs were awarded costs for the representative orders application on a scale 2B basis limited to steps 22, 24, 26 (half day basis) and 27 (second counsel, quarter day), totalling NZD 6,811.50; that award is jointly and severally payable by the defendants under r 14.14. Each defendant was awarded separate costs on a scale 2B basis for opposing the asset preservation orders limited to steps 23, 24 and 26 (half day allocation), with certification of second counsel for the first defendant at a quarter day; the first defendant's award is NZD 6,811.50 and the second defendant's award is NZD 6…
25 Jul 2023

MATHIAS v THE EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION [2023] NZHC 1951

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1951
Court

High Court

The court held EQC was substantially successful and awarded costs accordingly: plaintiff to pay EQC $7,318.28 in respect of the 31 March 2023 judgment; for the 25 November 2022 judgment EQC's claimed $16,781.92 was reduced by 25% to reflect EQC's failure to obtain the plaintiff's funding agreement, resulting in an award of $12,586.44 to EQC; costs for the 9 November 2022 hearing are to lie where they fall as agreed by counsel.
5 Jul 2023

TOUBAT v TOUBAT and Anor [2023] NZHC 1737

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1737
Court

High Court

The proceeding was struck out because the applicant failed to comply with mandatory High Court Rules for interlocutory summary judgment applications (no statement of claim or notice of proceeding, no supporting affidavit, application improperly made without notice, and no valid New Zealand address for service), rendering the proceeding plainly an abuse of process under r 5.35B.
10 Mar 2023

SLAVICH v WELLINGTON DISTRICT COURT [2023] NZHC 472

Citation

[2023] NZHC 472
Court

High Court

The Court held there were no special reasons to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event, awarded costs to the Attorney-General for the successful strike-out, and ordered costs on the 1A scale sought; specifically $5,247.00 costs and $530.43 disbursements, because the plaintiff did not raise matters falling within the exceptions and the award was consistent with predictable and expeditious costs practice.
10 Mar 2023

SLAVICH v WELLINGTON DISTRICT COURT [2023] NZHC 472

Citation

SLAVICH v WELLINGTON DISTRICT COURT [2023] NZHC 472
Court

High Court

Absent any of the limited exceptions in r 14.7, costs follow the event; the plaintiff did not establish any special or exceptional grounds to refuse or reduce costs, and therefore the Court ordered costs to the Attorney-General on a 1A scale for the successful strike-out application.
7 Mar 2023

CHRISTIAN v BAIN [2023] NZHC 424

Citation

[2023] NZHC 424
Court

High Court

Costs follow the event: defendant Bain is awarded scale costs for the substantive proceeding with specified amendments to the schedule, disbursements of $9,068, and a 25% uplift on specified trial preparation steps (not the 50% claimed); interlocutory costs for the three linked applications are awarded to the plaintiff in the sum of $13,384; costs are not reserved pending appeal and reductions under r14.7 are not warranted on the facts.
16 Feb 2023

YIHENG WU v STALIX PROPERTY LIMITED [2023] NZSC 2

Citation

[2023] NZSC 2
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave was dismissed because the statutory criteria for leave were not met: the application concerned only the particular circumstances of the case and raised no issue of public or commercial importance, there was no real risk of miscarriage of justice, and it was unnecessary to determine the proposed Supreme Court appeal before the Court of Appeal decided the substantive appeal.