New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation and delay

Legal area

Court

29 Jun 2012

McKenzie v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 210
Court

District Court

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable question of law capable of being pursued under s162, failed to show that the prior withdrawal was not a deliberate and informed decision warranting reinstatement, and relied on further medical evidence irrelevant to the legal issue; consequently there was no basis to grant leave or reinstate the appeal.
2 Dec 2011

BD FORREST V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC WN CIV-2011-409-1233

Citation

openlaw-ffb24ad6_23da_4f73_b7de_a5ef36861903.pdf
Court

High Court

Associate Judge has jurisdiction to consider the strike-out application in proceedings seeking declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgments Act; the defendant's strike-out application failed because the plaintiff's delay was not so clearly prejudicial or inexcusable as to warrant striking out and declarations are distinct from monetary claims; however, on balance security for costs under r 5.45 was just because the plaintiff is impecunious, has limited prospects and a prior similar declaration reduced the practical utility of another declaration, so security of NZD 10,000 ordered in two…
13 Oct 2009

ALF NO 9 PTY LIMITED V PHILLIP GEORGE ELLIS, LYNLEY ANN ELLIS AND JOHN LOUIS COKER AND ORS HC WN CIV 2009-485-435

Citation

openlaw-3683942e_fa94_4ed1_9597_344741e35638.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that IBS had sold all its assets including the causes of action to NVestec in 2003 so IBS and the liquidators had no proprietary causes of action to assign in 2009; accordingly the Assignment Deed was void as purporting to assign assets IBS did not own, and the statement of claim was struck out; PPSA s87 did not save the assignment factually because legal title had passed in 2003; additionally the funding arrangement in its present form constituted an abuse of process but strike out was ordered primarily because there were no causes of action to assign.
2 Mar 2007

FIFIELD V ROTORUA DISTRICT COUNCIL & ANOR CA CA167/06

Citation

openlaw-1a303d51_7a8c_4ad3_b7ff_121c81710bfd.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for special leave was dismissed because it was misconceived—there was nothing properly before the Court to appeal as the Labour Court had granted the relief sought—and even if arguable, the application was hopelessly out of time after a delay of over a decade and a half; the Labour Court properly declined to rehear on functus officio grounds and the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to effect the relief sought.

New Zealand Case Law

McKenzie v Accident Compensation Corporation

BD FORREST V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC WN CIV-2011-409-1233

ALF NO 9 PTY LIMITED V PHILLIP GEORGE ELLIS, LYNLEY ANN ELLIS AND JOHN LOUIS COKER AND ORS HC WN CIV 2009-485-435

FIFIELD V ROTORUA DISTRICT COUNCIL & ANOR CA CA167/06