New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Merits assessment

Legal area

Court

16 Feb 2021

SANDILANDS v SIGNAL [2021] NZHC 182

Citation

[2021] NZHC 182
Court

High Court

Order for security for costs was correctly made because the plaintiff is resident abroad, has given evidence of impecuniosity and did not provide financial material; the defendant is entitled to scale costs for the interlocutory step (2B scale) totalling $12,333; leave to appeal is refused because the applicant has not demonstrated an arguable error of law or fact, no issue of public importance arises and the interests of justice do not favour further delay.
3 May 2017

HARMON LYNN WILFRED V LEXINGTON LEGAL LIMITED [2017] NZCA 158

Citation

[2017] NZCA 158
Court

Court of Appeal

The Registrar did not err in refusing dispensation because there was an evidential basis to doubt the appellant's inability to pay (including potential spousal access to funds) and the appeal had no real prospects of success; accordingly the discretionary balance favoured requiring security for costs.
30 Nov 2016

WALLACE v LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER [2016] NZHC 2870

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2870
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal dismissed because the proposed appeal does not raise a question of law of general or public importance nor is it seriously arguable: the original claim on which the Tribunal decided legal aid has been materially altered by re-pleading after Brown J's decision, making it jurisdictionally inappropriate to direct reconsideration of a substantively different claim; Goodyer is not binding on the Tribunal; and any conceded errors are unlikely to produce a useful practical result on appeal.
20 Jul 2016

FALOON v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZCA 344

Citation

[2016] NZCA 344
Court

Court of Appeal

The Deputy Registrar correctly found there was insufficient evidence of impecuniosity and that the appeal lacked merit such that a solvent appellant would not reasonably pursue it; accordingly the review was declined and security in the sum of $6,600 was ordered to be paid within 20 working days.
14 Jul 2014

RAFIQ V COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE CA210/2014 [2014] NZCA 321

Citation

[2014] NZCA 321
Court

Court of Appeal

The Registrar did not err: the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances to waive security for costs, impecuniosity alone is insufficient, and the appeal lacked merit so ordering security of $5,880 was justified.
27 Jun 2011

EASTON V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL COA CA813/2010

Citation

COA CA813/2010
Court

Court of Appeal

Registrar's decision requiring security for costs of $5,560 was correct because the appellant's impecuniosity did not compel a waiver, the proposed grounds of appeal were weak making respondent likely entitled to costs, and without security the Council would be unlikely to recover costs; accordingly the review application was dismissed and security ordered.
28 Jan 2010

Meyrick v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 11
Court

District Court

Despite a significant delay of over two years, the Court granted an extension of time because the respondent would not be unduly prejudiced and the appellant's case had sufficient merit to justify hearing the appeal; the merits will be assessed by another Judge.
17 Jun 2009

BENJAMIN MORLAND EASTON V BROADCASTING COMMISSION AND ANOR CA CA793/2008

Citation

openlaw-5b67fb1a_10d7_4e4f_a904_8ad31e5e4ec9.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Registrar's decision to require security was open on the facts because, although the appellant is impecunious, the appeal has no realistic prospect of success and the interests of justice therefore do not require a full dispensation; a reduced security amount ($3,000) appropriately balances protection of respondents' costs with the appellant's ability to proceed.
13 Nov 2006

YU AND ANOR V DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR HC AK CIV 2006-404-5702

Citation

openlaw-a6a76d1a_6856_4299_95c6_162413f51e8c.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to bring out-of-time judicial review was declined because the applicants' delays (approx 12.75 months and 10 months) were substantial and lacked adequate explanation; their conduct showed deliberate tactical choices to pursue alternative remedies; the Associate Minister's letter did not constitute a special circumstance; accordingly the s146A threshold for extension of time was not met.
9 Mar 2006

CLARKE V NEW ZEALAND POLICE AND ORS HC WN CIV-2005-485-245

Citation

openlaw-c5615ba3_95ae_4145_931f_4109732012d3.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found the proceedings had no real prospect of success (corroborated by the Legal Services Agency's refusal of legal aid) and, applying High Court Rule 476C, ordered that the plaintiff pay costs to the second and third defendants on a category 2B basis together with approved disbursements in specified amounts.