New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to adduce fresh evidence

Legal area

Court

9 Jun 2021

ARAMOANA v R [2021] NZCA 241

Citation

[2021] NZCA 241
Court

Court of Appeal

There was no valid abandonment of the sentence appeal because the filed notice abandoned only the conviction appeal and the later informal email confirmations did not satisfy r35(2); accordingly the application to withdraw an abandonment was unnecessary and declined. The Court exercised its discretion to grant an extension of time for the sentence appeal and granted leave to adduce further evidence limited to the filed s27 report.
2 Nov 2020

LU v INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2020] NZCA 538

Citation

[2020] NZCA 538
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court refused leave to adduce further evidence because the proffered material was irrelevant; refused extension of time because the delay was moderately long, inadequately explained, and compounded by the applicants' abusive conduct in filing duplicative proceedings, and because the proposed appeal was plainly hopeless; consequently applications for stays were declined and respondents awarded costs.
16 Apr 2019

ZHANG & JIA v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2019] NZCA 114

Citation

[2019] NZCA 114
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to adduce fresh evidence was granted, but leave to bring a second appeal was declined because applicants elected to self-represent and did not satisfy the court they were unaware of legal aid or that a miscarriage of justice occurred; the offending was deliberate and profit-driven and fines were appropriate.
29 Nov 2018

L (CA727/2018) v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZCA 547

Citation

[2018] NZCA 547
Court

Court of Appeal

Interim name suppression was extended because the Court lacked a complete record, particularly the applicant's affidavits, and it was necessary to preserve the status quo pending determination of the leave application and substantive appeal with a court-ordered timetable.
21 Dec 2016

CARTER v R [2016] NZCA 629

Citation

[2016] NZCA 629
Court

Court of Appeal

Appellant was a voluntary self‑representative with capacity to participate in trial; despite cognitive impairment the trial was fair given overwhelming and corroborated Crown evidence and appellant's combative, diversionary conduct; cross‑examination on prior dishonesty convictions was properly permitted and jury directions were adequate; sentencing did not warrant mitigation for cognitive impairment because offending was deliberate and planned, but the three‑month uplift for historic prior offending was erroneous and is removed, reducing concurrent sentences from 3 years 3 months to 3 years…
19 Nov 2015

MCGEACHIN v R [2015] NZCA 558

Citation

[2015] NZCA 558
Court

Court of Appeal

The court held that the challenged actions of trial counsel were within the range of competent tactical judgment, the counsel's sworn affirmation provided cogent and largely uncontested explanations, and the appellant failed to establish that the conduct caused a miscarriage of justice; accordingly the appeal was dismissed, extension of time to file the appeal was granted, and leave to adduce further evidence and to file further submissions post-hearing was declined.
18 Apr 2013

AGM V SPE HC AK CIV 2013-404-167

Citation

openlaw-a597e88d_e667_472d_b2bf_3a898afc55a5.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to adduce further evidence was granted only for the correcting affidavit sworn 25 March 2013 because it corrected an inadvertent error and was plainly necessary; leave was refused for the updated valuation because it was not relevant to the sole issue on appeal (whether a concluded agreement was reached) and for the correspondence because that material was already before the Family Court and therefore did not require leave to be adduced on appeal.
9 Dec 2011

BEATTIE V PREMIER EVENTS GROUP LTD COA CA508/2011

Citation

COA CA508/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court granted the extension of time because the proposed appeal raised two arguable points and, weighing all factors, the interests of justice favored granting the extension despite an inadequate explanation for delay; leave to amend the extension application was granted; leave to adduce fresh evidence was refused because the evidence was not fresh or cogent; the extension was made subject to specified procedural conditions to avoid delay.
23 Sept 2010

URQUHART AND ANOR V SPANBILD HOLDINGS LIMITED CA CA30/2010

Citation

openlaw-a3d0982e_3d8b_4fe8_91f0_e06f651d0889.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the payment of $1,218,000 by Spanbild was made pursuant to its guarantee because the ANZ demand altered the circumstances, Spanbild elected to satisfy the demand as guarantor, contemporaneous communications and the Bank's acceptance established the character of the payment, and the company was merely a conduit; accordingly Spanbild was entitled to recover pro rata contributions under clause 10.2; further, the appellants' rectification case lacked credible and cogent evidence and the evidence was not fresh, so leave to adduce further evidence and amend was refused.
10 Nov 2004

SCENIC DEVELOPMENTS LTD & Anor V KELMARNA PROPERTIES LTD And Ors CA CA63/04

Citation

openlaw-479a9b60_907d_4634_a922_8b256950b41d.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The substantive appeal (CA63/04) was deemed abandoned because no application for an extension of time under r 10 was made within six months of filing; consequently the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the substantive appeal and related applications, and in any event discretion to grant leave was refused given appellants' dilatoriness, lack of fresh evidence and the practical mootness of relief; all applications dismissed and costs awarded to respondents.