24 Mar 2023
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the contended errors related to the balance of convenience were not shown to be of sufficient significance or consequence to justify an interlocutory appeal; appellate consideration would likely not affect the trial and would cause unnecessary delay and diversion of resources.
20 Dec 2022
The Judge correctly refused leave because the proposed class lacked a significant common issue: s 29(4) requires assessment on the facts of each claim and does not create a collective, date‑certain liability for all pre‑2012 earthquake claims; Ideal failed to identify any arguable legal or factual error in that finding and its proposed amendment would not cure the logical defect, so leave to appeal was refused.
29 Jun 2022
Leave to appeal was declined because Grimshaw's contention that privilege had been waived was speculative and not a bona fide arguable case given settled law that privilege is not waived by a brief until evidence is given; granting leave so close to a four‑week trial would likely prejudice the trial and impose disproportionate cost and delay, while any prejudice to Grimshaw can be addressed at trial if the advice is later put in issue.
26 Nov 2019
Defendant failed to satisfy the high threshold for leave to appeal: alleged errors were not shown to be sufficiently arguable or of sufficient public importance, defendant had full opportunity to be heard, balance of convenience and overall justice favoured the plaintiffs, and a stay would unduly prejudice plaintiffs; accordingly leave to appeal and stay were declined.
29 Mar 2019
Leave to appeal was granted because the Trustees demonstrated an arguable error of law on a matter of real significance: whether the correct threshold for a Norwich Pharmacal order is a "good case" or a lesser bona fide non-speculative belief, combined with the practical and significant effect of permitting joinder of some 300–400 additional defendants and the novel legal context (authority of rangatira, trustee indemnity, privacy of iwi registers) justified appellate consideration; accordingly leave to appeal and to cross-appeal were granted with timetabled filing directions.
23 May 2018
Grant leave to appeal under s 56(3) because there is a bona fide and serious legal conflict between High Court authorities on the interaction of ss 247 and 249 of the Immigration Act, the question is of public importance and likely to recur, there is good reason to consider it before or separately from any substantive appeal, and the public interest in clarification outweighs the effect of mootness between these parties.