10 Feb 2022
The application for a further adjournment was refused because insolvency proceedings are summary and must be brought to prompt conclusion, the matter had been long-running with prior High Court and Court of Appeal determinations directing that it be concluded, and the prospect of an imminent decision in parallel proceedings did not justify an indefinite stay.
20 Dec 2021
The proceeding must proceed to a full trial on both liability and quantum because hearing the matter in its entirety is more efficient and avoids the prospect of delay if the plaintiff succeeds on liability.
30 Sept 2021
The party who sought the adjournment (the body corporate) must bear the wasted costs of the opponent limited to those costs that will have to be incurred again; applying discretion the court awarded NZD 67,544.75 based on allowances for counsel memoranda, preparation (60% of category 2 scale), and expert witness fees net of GST.
23 May 2019
The court ordered the complainant to give evidence from behind a screen under s103 Evidence Act 2006 and admitted the defendant's prior convictions as propensity evidence under ss40-43 because their probative value (similar domestic violence pattern, distinctive features and temporal connection via parole) outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice; the 2degrees non-party disclosure order was granted on restrictive terms (disclosure to defendant only) because the phone data was likely held and relevant; the Department of Corrections disclosure was refused for lack of particularity and marginal r…
1 Mar 2018
The Court refused to direct the Commissioner to file a statement of claim because the originating application together with detailed affidavits already sufficiently and clearly communicated the nature, scope and grounds of the Commissioner's case; ordering a statement of claim at this late stage would be unnecessary, disproportionate, impose prejudice and additional cost, and would not materially assist resolution of issues arising from detailed financial affidavit evidence.
28 Jun 2017
The Court held the appropriate assessment period for liability began when the second defendant's briefs were due (12 August); the second defendant's belated filing of evidence and an amended statement of defence were operative causes of wasted costs incurred between that date and 1 November, so partial awards for specified categories were justified; some claims (preparation of plaintiffs' briefs and expert fees) are reserved for potential later claim; global punitive uplift was denied; each applicant awarded $892 costs for the wasted costs application.
13 Jul 2016
The Court granted leave to amend the statement of defence and to file a counterclaim but stayed the counterclaim pending determination of Mercedes-Benz's substantive claim; refused to issue subpoenas for the plaintiff's counsel as witnesses because their evidence was not relevant to the main claim; adjourned the joinder application to a case management conference after judgment on the substantive claim; ordered supplementary discovery and specific pre-trial directions to ensure the trial could proceed as scheduled.
18 May 2016
Non-party discovery demonstrated the defendant's original affirmation was deficient; consequently the court ordered the defendant to file and serve a supplementary affirmation addressing categories 1-3 and to disclose or identify documents in her possession or control; discovery as to category 4 was not ordered because the plaintiff already held a power of attorney sufficient to make the relevant point and the transaction was temporally remote.
6 Jul 2015
The application to adjourn was dismissed because counsel had mutually agreed an amended timetable (plaintiffs to serve briefs by 24 July 2015), the defendant failed to demonstrate an inability to present the expert's evidence by alternative means, and the expert's overseas unavailability did not justify postponement given viable alternatives (video link/skype or deferral of that witness's evidence shortly after his return) and the substantial prejudice and delay the plaintiffs would suffer from further adjournment.
13 Nov 2014
Court ordered targeted procedural steps: plaintiff must file an affidavit confirming it has not received the source documents for Document 224 and list relevant contractor contracts; defendant must, within 21 days of that affidavit, swear a further affidavit confirming whether Opus holds any further documents relating to Document 224 or identifying documents already discovered; the application for particular discovery was dealt with by directed affidavits rather than an unconditional order for production.