New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prejudice and delay

Legal area

Court

7 Sept 2022

POWER FARMING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v SOUTH WEST CONTRACTING (2002) LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2275

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2275
Court

High Court

The counterclaim was struck out because the delay (abeyance from 2006 to 2021 and original incidents circa 2002–2004) was inordinate and inexcusable, and caused serious prejudice to PFNZ through loss or faded memory of witnesses, unavailability of the machinery for inspection, and evidential problems on causation and quantum; impecuniosity did not justify the prolonged failure to post security.
13 Apr 2022

SMITH v CLAIMS RESOLUTION SERVICE LTD [2022] NZHC 773

Citation

[2022] NZHC 773
Court

High Court

Substitution was refused because the proposed representatives' consent was conditional and unsupported by binding funding or willingness to accept personal cost risk, making them incapable of reliably representing the group; granting substitution on those terms would cause indefinite delay and prejudice defendants, so the representation order was revoked and alternative protections (opt‑in joinder with deadlines) ordered to protect group members.
16 Jul 2020

IL FORNO LTD v KLEINE [2020] NZHC 1732

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1732
Court

High Court

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed amendments merely aligned pleadings with evidence, did not change the parties' respective cases, and would not cause significant prejudice or delay; therefore the amendment was in the interests of justice and permitted after the close of pleadings.
2 Jul 2020

VLS v BJS [2020] NZHC 1634

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1634
Court

High Court

Leave to extend time to appeal was refused because the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for a substantial 15–18 month delay, the delay caused real prejudice to the respondent who had relied on the Family Court order in arranging his finances, and the proposed appeal did not demonstrate sufficiently strong merits to overcome the delay and prejudice.
10 May 2019

VON BRAINICH-FELTH-EILANDER v WARD [2019] NZHC 1029

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1029
Court

High Court

Court granted leave only to amend pleadings to raise a jurisdictional issue about the Netherlands immovable properties but refused leave to amend in relation to the family trust powers and the three Schedule B items because the defendant's proposed changes were unacceptably late, would constitute distinct new defences, would cause significant prejudice and likely delay, and were insufficiently justified on the merits; costs consequences and time limits were ordered to mitigate prejudice.
16 Nov 2018

GOODIER v THE EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION [2018] NZHC 2980

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2980
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave to amend the statement of claim to include additional items of damage revealed in evidence and to plead revised remediation costings (categories 1 and 2) because those matters were before the Court and justice required the pleadings reflect the real controversy, subject to defendants being given adequate opportunity to address new matters; the Court disallowed reinstatement of the abandoned s 19 general damages claim (category 3) because it had been abandoned at the outset of trial, there was no liability judgment to support awards of general damages, interest or costs…
24 Aug 2018

HERMANN v WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL [2018] NZHC 2187

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2187
Court

High Court

Applicant was only marginally successful: the Court found error in the Tribunal's consideration of the ultimate criterion for removal and remitted the matter, but did not find other asserted errors; accordingly costs were awarded to the applicants but reduced by 50% of 2B scale to reflect limited success, with disbursements awarded.
5 Dec 2016

CRANIUM ADSPACE LTD v BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO (NEW ZEALAND) LTD [2016] NZHC 2922

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2922
Court

High Court

Article 8 of Schedule 1 to the Arbitration Act 1996 required a stay because the prerequisites were met and the arbitration agreement in clause 15 was operative; speculative or potential claims against third parties do not render the arbitration agreement inoperative or incapable of being performed and are insufficient to justify maintaining the proceeding in the court.
1 Jun 2016

BURDEN v ESR GROUP & ORS [2016] NZHC 1537

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1537
Court

High Court

Leave to amend was refused because the proposed commissioning defence was a new and distinct defence raised too late (only advanced in closing), the evidence supporting it was contradictory and underdeveloped, allowing it would cause significant prejudice and delay to the plaintiffs (necessitating re-opening of trial and recall of overseas witnesses), and choice of law and evidential issues meant the defence was weak and could not be resolved fairly at that stage.
16 May 2016

GOODFELLOW v BROWN [2016] NZHC 984

Citation

[2016] NZHC 984
Court

High Court

Despite the defendant's delay, the documents support an arguable defense that the funds originated from Claire via Amalgamated Dairies and the interests of justice require the defendant be allowed to advance that defence; the resulting prejudice to the plaintiffs can be remedied by short adjournment and timetable adjustments, so leave to amend is granted with directions on filing and a new trial timetable.