New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Preliminary question

Legal area

Court

11 Jul 2022

IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v KIRK ROBERTS CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1628

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1628
Court

High Court

The application for a separate preliminary determination was dismissed because defendants objected to the proposed split hearing, the allocated judge's availability and registrar support made a two-stage hearing impractical, and the proceeding could not be accommodated as proposed; consequently the scheduled hearing was vacated and costs were to follow the event on a 2B basis unless memoranda were filed.
18 Nov 2021

TAU & OTHERS v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 3108

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3108
Court

High Court

The application to determine the preliminary question was dismissed because there were difficult demarcation issues: the question could not be isolated from the Crown's positive defences (notably statutory modification/extinguishment), granting the application would effectively decide or foreclose those defences, there was insufficient demonstrated time-saving, and splitting the trial risked inefficiency and multiple appeals; novel tikanga-based rights are better resolved in a full factual trial context.
19 Jun 2019

M2 NZ LIMITED v THE PHONE COMPANY LIMITED [2019] NZCA 230

Citation

[2019] NZCA 230
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause (f) excludes net receipts covered by clause (e) and by wholesale/licensing arrangements and the additional 1% applies to net receipts from M2 mobile phone services customers generally; however where customers were procured by M2 contractors, dealers or agents in New Zealand the 1% applies only when the Vodafone NZ mobile network is used to deliver the mobile services for which the net receipts are received; this interpretation gives effect to the comma placement, the exclusions, the commercial context and avoids uncommercial open‑ended obligations — appeal allowed.
8 May 2019

CROSER & ANOR v FOCUS GENETICS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (COSTS) [2019] NZHC 990

Citation

[2019] NZHC 990
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs' effective discontinuance of the interlocutory application was treated as a discontinuance for costs purposes; although the defendant incurred work opposing the application, that evidence was relevant to the substantive hearing and not wasted; the plaintiffs acted responsibly in withdrawing when it became clear the matter could not be heard in one day and the 50% uplift was not justified, therefore costs are awarded to the defendant on a 2B basis in accordance with Schedule A to the defendant's 1 May 2019 memorandum without the claimed 50% uplift.
14 Dec 2012

BODY CORPORATE 212050 V HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-004515

Citation

openlaw-ffa3784d_5065_47ec_aac7_038dd5268c48.pdf
Court

High Court

Application for a separate preliminary Limitation Act hearing is declined because there is significant overlap of evidence between the limitation issue and substantive liability, the net time savings are minimal relative to duplication and risk of wasted time if the defendants fail, and the risk of appeals and resultant delay would prejudice remaining plaintiffs; overall justice requires a single trial.
24 Apr 2007

JOANNE LOUISE SKINNER AND WARREN GREGORY TOBIN V STAYINFRONT INC AND ORS. CA CA18/07

Citation

openlaw-7c061a43_ad70_4611_b1a0_0bd09a0a12b0.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was refused because the Employment Court's decision to determine a preliminary question was a procedural case management decision that did not raise a question of law for this Court, and the appeal had no real prospect of success given the applicants' affirmation of the settlement agreements and statutory limits on appeals.

New Zealand Case Law

IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v KIRK ROBERTS CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1628

TAU & OTHERS v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 3108

M2 NZ LIMITED v THE PHONE COMPANY LIMITED [2019] NZCA 230

CROSER & ANOR v FOCUS GENETICS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (COSTS) [2019] NZHC 990

BODY CORPORATE 212050 V HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-004515

JOANNE LOUISE SKINNER AND WARREN GREGORY TOBIN V STAYINFRONT INC AND ORS. CA CA18/07