New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mode of trial

Legal area

Court

14 Mar 2023

SYED v MALIK & ANOR [2023] NZHC 496

Citation

[2023] NZHC 496
Court

High Court

The Judge found both s16(4)(a) and s16(4)(b) thresholds met: the defendants' proposed mitigation amounted to a mixed question of law and fact resembling a truth defence that a jury could not be expected to confine to quantum alone, and the case involved prolonged examination (20 publications, ~200 statements, complex cross‑jurisdictional business records and Urdu evidence) that could not conveniently be tried with a jury; on balance the court exercised its discretion to order the issue of quantum be tried by a judge alone.
27 Oct 2021

JOHNSON v JOHNSON [2021] NZHC 2872

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2872
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was declined because the applicant failed to identify an arguable error of law or fact, remote participation by VMR was practicable given affidavits, an electronic searchable bundle and courtroom VMR facilities, public health risks from cross-alert travel were material, and the high threshold for interlocutory leave and interests of justice did not justify further delay to the fixture.
22 Oct 2021

CHRISTIAN v BAIN [2021] NZHC 2834

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2834
Court

High Court

The Court held that the inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to override a statutory jury election under s 16(3), but a party who has given a jury notice may, with leave, withdraw that election; accordingly the plaintiff was granted leave to withdraw his jury notice on the condition he consents to an extension of time permitting the defendant to give a jury notice by 8 November 2021, and no order as to costs was made.
27 Aug 2021

CATO v MANAIA MEDIA LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2240

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2240
Court

High Court

Section 16 of the Senior Courts Act, read with its mandatory language, legislative history and the absence of clear statutory words preserving inherent jurisdiction, excludes any residual inherent power to order a judge-alone trial beyond the limited grounds in s16(4); accordingly the plaintiff's application to change the mode of trial was dismissed and, even if inherent power existed, it would not have been exercised on these facts.
15 Jul 2019

R v KAIENUA [2019] NZHC 1648

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1648
Court

High Court

Leave was granted under s 53(2)(b) because the court was satisfied withdrawal of the election was unlikely to cause a delay in the trial being concluded; the trial will proceed by judge alone that day.
30 Jul 2018

S (SC 36/2018) v R [2018] NZSC 64

Citation

[2018] NZSC 64
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted leave because the question whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the appeal on the mode of trial point raised an arguable issue warranting Supreme Court consideration; the approved question was framed accordingly.
12 Apr 2017

0318029a-e00d-4e50-a86c-2ae9ccccbdef.pdf

Citation

openlaw-b016a22a_f2f8_453a_8b27_9e48f742b88c.pdf
Court

High Court

The Judge ordered trial before a Judge without a jury because the defendants' qualified privilege defences raise difficult mixed questions of law and fact that would complicate and blur the functions of judge and jury (s19A(5)(a)) and the case involves prolonged and extensive examination of documents and complex factual issues (common bundle >1500 pages; lengthy question trail) that cannot conveniently be dealt with by a jury (s19A(5)(b)), and on balance a judge alone trial is in the interests of justice.
11 Dec 2015

LDC FINANCE LIMITED v DAVID GORDON MILLER, KEVIN ELLIOTT, CHRISTOPHER JOHN HARDIMAN AND JOHN CHARLES JANETTO [2015] NZHC 3165

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3165
Court

High Court

The Court held that plaintiffs may proceed with their chosen method of a single first trial on all causes of action in the fourth amended statement of claim (except the cause commencing at paragraph 279), because the defendants failed to demonstrate manifest prejudice from representative proof; the plaintiffs bear the risk that their method may fail to establish reliance under Boyd Knight and may appeal if necessary.
28 Feb 2008

SIEMER V KATE FARDELL EXECUTRIX FOR ROBERT FARDELL, DECEASED SC 93/2007

Citation

SC 93/2007
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to meet s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003: the issue did not raise a question of general or public importance, there was no appearance of miscarriage of justice, and the High Court had made an orthodox exercise of discretion on the mode of trial; authority (Williams v Beesley) rejects bias-based challenges to mode of trial.