New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to intervene

Legal area

Court

28 Jun 2022

NEW ZEALAND INDEPENDENT PHARMACY GROUP v HUTT VALLEY DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2022] NZHC 1512

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1512
Court

High Court

The Guild was granted leave to intervene but limited to filing written submissions and representation at trial with oral submissions subject to the trial judge's discretion; leave to file evidence was refused at this stage but may be renewed after the applicant's evidence is filed if the Guild promptly and specifically identifies areas where evidence would assist; these constraints mitigate risk of issue expansion and prejudice to parties while allowing useful assistance to the Court.
1 Mar 2021

BORROWDALE v DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH [2021] NZCA 33

Citation

[2021] NZCA 33
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to intervene was granted because the appeal raised matters of general and wide public importance and the New Zealand Law Society, by reason of its statutory functions and expertise, could provide suitably focused submissions that would assist the Court without expanding the issues, lengthening the hearing, or materially increasing costs; accordingly NZLS was granted leave to intervene and there was no order as to costs.
11 Feb 2021

ROSS v SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED [2021] NZHC 142

Citation

[2021] NZHC 142
Court

High Court

LPF's application for leave to intervene was dismissed because LPF did not demonstrate a sufficient, direct interest (no funding arrangement with affected claimants) and intervention was unnecessary and would not assist the Court; the requested case management conference was also refused and the non‑party request for access to court documents was refused.
31 Jul 2020

COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT LTD v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2020] NZHC 1906 [31 July 2020]

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1906
Court

High Court

The Commissioner was entitled to recover 2B scale costs for preparation of written submissions, counsel's appearance at the defended hearing, and the sealing of the interlocutory order because the appellants vigorously opposed the intervention applications thereby making those steps necessary; costs for the interlocutory application filings and the filing fees were disallowed because some costs would have been incurred regardless; sealing fees and the reasonable airfare for Wellington counsel were allowed; total costs and disbursements of $5,204.87 awarded to the Commissioner, each appellant…
20 May 2019

FINN HABIB BATATO v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [2019] NZSC 50

Citation

[2019] NZSC 50
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to intervene was declined because the issues about the meaning of 'object' in s 131 arise in a particular extradition context and have been canvassed in detail by the parties, intervention was unnecessary to ensure appropriate submissions, and the intervener did not demonstrate representative status such that intervention was required; broader implications alone do not justify intervention.
29 Nov 2018

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE SOCIETY INC v OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 3109

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3109
Court

High Court

Leave to intervene was granted because the appeal involved public interest issues that would have an impact on other regional councils, making the Marlborough District Council's participation appropriate.
28 May 2015

URBAN AUCKLAND, THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF AUCKLAND CITY AND WATERFRONT INC v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 1183

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1183
Court

High Court

The application for joinder/leave to intervene was dismissed because KIA had no greater interest than the general public, was incorporated after the Council's decision, appeared unable to meet potential adverse costs, proposed only submissions which would not assist the Court, and joinder would unnecessarily lengthen the hearing and increase costs.
16 Apr 2014

CURRIE & ORS V CLAYTON & ANOR CA341/2013 [2014] NZCA 152

Citation

[2014] NZCA 152
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to intervene was refused because the applicant was not a party, failed to advance any substantive or arguable grounds, and intervention would not materially assist the Court given the largely legal nature of the issues; therefore intervention was not in the overall interests of justice.