New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pleadings and amendment

Legal area

Court

30 Oct 2017

STOCKMAN v NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OF COUNSELLORS INC [2017] NZHC 2223

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2223
Court

High Court

The judge declined recusal because a fully informed fair-minded observer would not reasonably apprehend bias: the matter before the judge was interlocutory and procedural with no final determination; no legal reasons were required for the adjournment; suggestions to seek legal advice were legitimate assistance to a self-represented litigant and not exclusionary; and any prior involvement with the Law Commission was remote and bore no logical connection to a fear of prejudgment.
10 Apr 2017

NEEDHAM v SAMY TRUSTEE LIMITED [2017] NZCA 117

Citation

(2017) 24 PRNZ 184
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the ground that STL had to discharge its mortgage before receiving shares was not properly pleaded and the evidence was incomplete and unsatisfactory on that factual issue; the MOA could not be construed in isolation given subsequent conduct and the Addendum, and it would be unfair to decide the new contention on the deficient record.
18 Feb 2009

DP DICKINSON V MCDONALD'S LIME LIMITED HC HAM CIV 2008-419-582

Citation

openlaw-31c621fb_537f_4921_a6dc_1ffe5535266e.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 3 is a negative covenant not requiring referral of enquiries; referrals to Rangitoto do not amount to a breach and documents relating to Rangitoto are not relevant to the pleaded issue, so discovery as to Rangitoto is refused; discovery relating to Lurcher is to be supplemented by the defendant and adjourned for adequacy.
20 Nov 2006

TEAM BARRY V FORLONG HC AK CIV.2003-404-5593

Citation

openlaw-39f9de29_a05d_42a1_86bc_195a80c4cf4b.pdf
Court

High Court

The court ordered that (1) all remaining substantive issues be heard at a single allocated fixture and heard sequentially with the EMA issue first; (2) except for accountants' fees ordered to be paid as they fall due, no interim payments are to be made from the sale proceeds until the parties' overall financial rights and liabilities are finally determined; (3) Tuaman's stay application against the EMA counterclaim was dismissed because it was premature and the election issue required evidence; (4) Horwath Porter Wigglesworth were to be paid outstanding invoices forthwith (NZ$2,322.56 and pro…

New Zealand Case Law

STOCKMAN v NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OF COUNSELLORS INC [2017] NZHC 2223

NEEDHAM v SAMY TRUSTEE LIMITED [2017] NZCA 117

DP DICKINSON V MCDONALD'S LIME LIMITED HC HAM CIV 2008-419-582

TEAM BARRY V FORLONG HC AK CIV.2003-404-5593