7 Dec 2020
The appeal was struck out because the proceedings constituted an abuse of process — they sought to relitigate issues of copyright ownership and infringement that had already been finally determined with appeal rights exhausted, and therefore were frivolous and vexatious; consequently the Registry was ordered not to accept filings from the appellant without prior judicial leave.
17 Jul 2020
The recall application is dismissed because the Palmer J decision relied on was not of such clear, high authority to satisfy the Horowhenua exception, the matters challenged were substantive findings of fact and law already addressed in the judgment and are properly pursued by appeal, and no very special reason existed to justify recall; the judge further concluded the failure to obtain leave was an irregularity that did not render the setting aside application a nullity.
29 Nov 2019
The recall application was dismissed because there were no grounds to recall under r 8A, the application constituted an abuse of process given prior determinations and procedural delays, and the Court exercised its power to prevent further abuse by barring further recall applications in the proceeding.
7 Jun 2018
Costs should be awarded now despite the plaintiff withdrawing the interlocutory applications because there are no special reasons to defer; defendant and intended defendants incurred reasonable costs and are entitled to contribution; indemnity costs were not justified; appropriate award is $750 for each joinder application and $250 for the urgent relief application, totaling $1,750; no stay of execution was granted.
3 Nov 2017
The Registrar erred in imposing a requirement for a formal leave application; the proper procedure was to refer similar documents to a Judge for review. However, the proposed statement of claim was non-compliant with rr5.26 and 5.27, unintelligible and amounted to an abuse of process by attempting to relitigate finally determined GST matters; accordingly the documents are rejected for filing and returned to the plaintiff.
21 Mar 2017
The Registrar correctly applied the Court of Appeal Rules and principles: s 414 does not displace the Rules; the appellant did not establish impecuniosity or exceptional circumstances and the appeal is weak and case-specific, therefore refusal to dispense with security was correct and $6,600 security must be paid into Court by the stated date.
26 Jun 2014
Judge Doherty correctly declined leave to entertain the interlocutory application because it attempted to relitigate concluded procedural matters after the case was set down and was not a permissible application for directions; the settlement conference was authorised by the District Courts Rules and did not nullify proceedings; the refusal to adjourn was justified on notice and preparedness grounds; the Council was properly joined; and the High Court could limit filings to prevent abuse of process, so the appeal is dismissed and costs awarded to respondents.
31 Jan 2007
Because the plaintiffs specifically alleged the 9 March 2000 invoice was false and sought documents incorporating it, the defendant was ordered to produce the relevant GST returns or, if none exist, file an affidavit by an authorised representative by 5pm on 7 February 2007; leave to file the Amended Statement of Defence to the Counterclaim was granted; costs reserved to the trial judge.