New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation/time bar

Legal area

Court

11 Jul 2023

DELIU v THE NEW ZEALAND DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2023] NZHC 1803

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1803
Court

High Court

The Judge correctly applied s26 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and concluded the materials provided by the proposed private prosecutor did not establish insufficiency of public records or wilful/negligent disposal necessary to justify a trial under the Public Records Act; public records and documents supplied showed panel membership and allocation information; proposed prosecutions were unsupported and likely time barred; accordingly the charging documents were not accepted for filing and the application for judicial review was dismissed.
21 Jul 2022

FUJIFILM BUSINESS INNOVATION NEW ZEALAND LTD v WHITTAKER [2022] NZHC 1760

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1760
Court

High Court

Leave was refused for Ernst & Young to rely on Fuji's discovered documents for its amended counterclaim because Ernst & Young failed to demonstrate special circumstances justifying collateral use of discovery and failed to specify which amendments relied on discovery; the trial will proceed on Fuji's amended claim and Ernst & Young's original counterclaim; Ernst & Young was ordered to disclose documents in its control relating to its awareness of some more than minimal loss or damage likely to have resulted from its audits of Fuji's 2013–2015 financial statements conducted in reliance on Fuji…
9 Jul 2021

OLLIVER v SPARKS [2021] NZHC 1714

Citation

OLLIVER v SPARKS [2021] NZHC 1714
Court

High Court

Costs of Ms Sparks' strike out and/or defendant's summary judgment application are reserved to the substantive proceeding because the application was not unreasonable or an abuse of process and the Court exercises its discretion to defer costs where a reasonable case was advanced; consequently no interim costs award is made and submissions seeking 3C scale, a 75% uplift or certification for second counsel were rejected as unjustified.
19 Dec 2019

FARRELLY v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 3394

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3394
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal did not raise matters of sufficient public or party importance to outweigh delay and was not justified in the interests of justice; extensive discovery of GPE Holdings' and Mr Craig Stewart's financial/internal records was declined as disproportionate and unlikely to materially assist proof that Stewart was a developer absent evidence that the corporate arrangements were a sham; limited discovery as to Stratum Management and specified categories from 1 April 2005 was ordered; joinder of TWA Investments Ltd was granted because the plainti…
12 May 2008

MURRAY & ORS V MOREL & CO LTD AND ORS CA CA86/04

Citation

openlaw-75ecc7c7_7ef3_4e56_b039_bda8e7b3eede.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Because the Supreme Court awarded costs to the respondents and ordered that costs below be fixed in light of the Supreme Court outcome, this Court fixed costs in accordance with that outcome: appellants must pay $10,000 plus usual disbursements to the first and second respondents, and $10,000 plus $180 disbursements to the third respondent; the appellants' contention that a surviving equitable cause precluded costs was rejected.

New Zealand Case Law

DELIU v THE NEW ZEALAND DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2023] NZHC 1803

FUJIFILM BUSINESS INNOVATION NEW ZEALAND LTD v WHITTAKER [2022] NZHC 1760

OLLIVER v SPARKS [2021] NZHC 1714

FARRELLY v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 3394

MURRAY & ORS V MOREL & CO LTD AND ORS CA CA86/04