New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-compliance with court orders

Legal area

Court

19 Jan 2022

JACKSON v KERR (costs) [2022] NZHC 29

Citation

[2022] NZHC 29
Court

High Court

Because Mr Kerr serially failed to comply with multiple court orders and thereby caused the receivers unnecessary expense, indemnity costs were justified; the claimed rates and allocation of work were reasonable in the circumstances, the disbursements were appropriate, GST was included because the company was not GST registered, and the receivers were entitled to $102,459.91 (including GST) plus disbursements $929.99 and $487 for the costs memorandum, totalling $103,389.90.
20 Oct 2021

TUTUKI v POLICE [2021] NZHC 2808

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2808
Court

High Court

The sentencing Judge did not err in declining to commute the sentence to home detention or in refusing leave to apply: the offender's extensive record of similar offending and breaches of orders, combined with the unsuitability of the proposed residence and occupant (firearms/drug concerns), meant imprisonment was the least restrictive and appropriate sentence; the High Court, on rehearing, would not disturb that discretionary judgment within its margin of appreciation.
4 Aug 2021

GINIVAN v SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LTD [2021] NZHC 1997

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1997
Court

High Court

Indemnity costs were declined because the application was resolved by agreement before a full determination on the merits; however the plaintiffs were not the successful party, having deliberately failed to comply with prior orders, and Southern Response was awarded costs on a 2B basis with a 20% uplift plus disbursements of $699.94 to reflect delays and additional work caused by jurisdictional errors.
6 Nov 2019

BHANABHAI v LOWNDES [2019] NZHC 2885

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2885
Court

High Court

Because the defendant implicitly demonstrated wilful and inexcusable disregard for the court's preceding order, indemnity costs are justified; actual legal expenses reasonably incurred are recoverable but a $200 office administration charge is not recoverable and any GST component must be deducted if recoverable from the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, resulting in an order for payment of $29,572.15 less any GST recoverable.
24 Oct 2018

DAVID CHARLES BOSKETT v WILMA TANGDOL BOSKETT [2018] NZHC 2758

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2758
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal and to adduce further evidence was refused because the Waller v Hider test was not met (no real question of law, only a dispute over facts and a relatively small amount), further evidence offered was reasonably available to the Family Court and should not be admitted on appeal, and there was no basis to grant the interim orders sought; costs awarded to respondent on a 2B basis.
13 Mar 2018

DUVAL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 393

Citation

[2018] NZHC 393
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the sentencing Judge did not err in law or principle in refusing to convert the short-term prison sentence to home detention: she made a reasoned, principled evaluative judgment that, given the offender's significant history of non-compliance and offending while subject to electronic monitoring and other court orders, only a short custodial sentence would adequately serve the relevant sentencing purposes and be the least restrictive appropriate outcome.
6 Dec 2017

Radich v New Zealand Police [2017] NZHC 3013

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3013
Court

High Court

The appellant was given the statutory 10 working days' notice under s338(2) and failed to comply with outstanding court orders or take steps to prosecute the appeal; accordingly the appeal was treated as abandoned and dismissed under s338(1) Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
8 Mar 2013

IBANEZ LIMITED & Ors V WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED & Ors HC AK CIV-2011-404-5263

Citation

openlaw-58364997_fce1_45bd_9a30_e00856458831.pdf
Court

High Court

Because of extensive delays, breaches of court orders, failure to prosecute and absence of any defence to the strike out application, the court struck out the proceedings in their entirety.
25 Mar 2011

TGR HELICORP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) V ROGERS AND ROGERS HC AK CIV 2008-404-004109

Citation

openlaw-1dff0a93_19ad_4a91_b0c4_b7ffd8b8a215.pdf
Court

High Court

The court found the Rogers in continuing contempt for persistent non-compliance and false assertions about assets, rejected their proposed remedial offer as inadequate, concluded medical evidence did not preclude committal, and therefore ordered both to be committed to one month imprisonment subject to specified conditions.
24 Nov 2010

SIEMER V THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR NEW ZEALAND CA CA126/2010

Citation

openlaw-a3968266_b386_4e80_baca_931b9934f98f.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the Solicitor-General had achieved the purpose of the contempt application by securing removal of the material and a personal undertaking, the appellant repeatedly failed in interlocutory applications and disobeyed court orders, and those circumstances fall within High Court Rules r14.6(4)(a) and (b) (and para (f)) justifying an award of indemnity costs; the judge was entitled to inquire into compliance and exhibited no bias.