New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural irregularity

Legal area

Court

2 Sept 2022

DAVIS v GWILLIAM [2022] NZHC 2228

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2228
Court

High Court

The application for a stay was dismissed because the plaintiff used the wrong procedural vehicle (r20.10 applies only to High Court appeals), had no substantive right of occupation as a beneficiary, the Tenancy Tribunal had lawfully granted possession and declined a stay, no timely appeal to the District Court was pursued, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the merits or balance of convenience required for interim injunctive relief.
9 Nov 2021

JDN LIMITED v ABDUL-JABBAR [2021] NZHC 3021

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3021
Court

High Court

The original summons to debtor was validly issued and served supported by the filed creditor's application and affidavit; subsequently issued replacement documents did not render the proceeding a nullity; the debtor had notice and failed to appear on the first call or to inquire after the adjournment, therefore the adjudication order should not be annulled under s 309(1)(a).
12 Aug 2021

HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS & ORS [2021] NZSC 98

Citation

[2021] NZSC 98
Court

Supreme Court

The recall application lacked merit and was irregular; material filed without leave was irrelevant and would not have been admitted; accordingly the applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents collectively, to be divided equally between the first respondents and the second and third respondents unless they agree otherwise.
19 Jun 2019

FALOON v PLANNING TRIBUNAL AT WELLINGTON [2019] NZCA 236

Citation

[2019] NZCA 236
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the alleged procedural irregularities were not tenable or sufficiently material to warrant setting aside the judgment, the application was an indirect attempt to challenge the substantive merits which are the subject of an extant appeal as of right, and it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave.
13 Jun 2019

HARBOUR REFLECTIONS LTD & Anor v BODY CORPORATE 170989 [2019] NZHC 1338

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1338
Court

High Court

The statutory demands materially overstated amounts due; applicants established arguable and substantial disputes including that disputed credits should arguably have been applied from 24 September 2015 and that interest calculations were contested; because the demands were manifestly defective and allowing them to remain would cause substantial injustice the Court set the demands aside under s290.
24 Apr 2019

BULL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 899

Citation

[2019] NZHC 899
Court

High Court

The sentencing contained material procedural errors (refusal to adjourn, contested facts before the Judge, and prejudice caused by splitting charges that precluded consideration of an alcohol interlock sentence) sufficient to allow the appeal; all driving disqualifications imposed in the Hamilton District Court were set aside and the relevant charges remitted for resentencing by the Tauranga Judge so all related charges can be dealt with together.
23 Aug 2017

SINGH v BODY CORPORATE 207650 [2017] NZHC 2031

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2031
Court

High Court

Plaintiffs were entitled to seek declarations and to challenge the committee resolution and voting exclusion; those claims had a good chance of success, but the court would likely not have set aside the October 25 resolution because the result would have been the same; accordingly costs are awarded to plaintiffs on a Category 2B basis reduced by 50% plus costs as fixed by the Registrar and leave to discontinue is granted.
11 Apr 2017

J v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZHC 701

Citation

[2017] NZHC 701
Court

High Court

Clerical and drafting errors in the original and replacement CPMIP/IDCCR orders were technical irregularities that did not invalidate the orders; extensions and deferrals under the IDCCR Act were lawfully made and did not lapse; extensions may lawfully result in total detention beyond three years provided statutory criteria and safeguards are met; the applicable standard of proof for extension is the civil standard (balance of probabilities); defective deferral orders did not void later extensions because there was no prejudice and the matters were shortly thereafter heard and determined.
24 Feb 2017

EA v RENNIE COX LAWYERS [2017] NZHC 260

Citation

[2017] NZHC 260
Court

High Court

Both parties succeeded to some extent but the respondent achieved a greater measure of success and retained the bulk of the default judgment; accordingly costs were directed to lie where they fell for steps prior to 2 August 2016 and for the substantive hearing of 26 November 2016, while the appellant was awarded costs for the aborted 2 August 2016 hearing and for the cross-appeal on specified category 2B bases; two District Court costs awards were set aside because the judgment had been irregularly obtained.
7 Sept 2016

ADVICEWISE PEOPLE LTD AND ORS v TRENDS PUBLISHING INTERNATIONAL LTD [2016] NZHC 2119

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2119
Court

High Court

The compromise was set aside because the proponent deliberately structured the creditor meeting to include insider creditors who would not participate in distributions, thereby manufacturing the statutory 75% in value majority and unfairly prejudicing dissenting creditors; where legal rights or economic interests are so dissimilar that creditors cannot meaningfully consult together they should be placed in separate classes and the Court will grant relief under s 232(3) to prevent such manipulation.