New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Protected disclosures

Legal area

Court

19 Aug 2016

SINGH v AUCKLAND CO-OPERATIVE TAXI SOCIETY LTD [2016] NZHC 1940

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1940
Court

High Court

Discovery was refused for categories 1–7, 10–13 as not necessary or not relevant to the judicial review issues; limited discovery ordered for full identifying details of unfinancial requisitioners and Board/SGM/AGM agendas and minutes (categories 8 and 9) with inspection restricted to plaintiff's counsel; interim orders (b)–(f) were rescinded for breach of the communication restraint while interim order (a) (suspension of board membership without filling the seat) was maintained and the Society was ordered to preserve the plaintiff's share; indemnity costs awarded to defendants for the rescis…
12 Apr 2016

SINGH v AUCKLAND CO-OPERATIVE TAXI SOCIETY LTD & ANOR [2016] NZHC 642

Citation

[2016] NZHC 642
Court

High Court

Interim orders were necessary and appropriate to preserve the applicant's position because there was a real risk of irreparable detriment to his income and governance role and a plausible arguable case that the Society prematurely confirmed termination before external investigations concluded; the balance of convenience and overall justice favored preserving membership with tailored restrictions to mitigate harm to the Society.
16 Dec 2015

SINGH v AUCKLAND CO-OPERATIVE TAXI SOCIETY LTD [2015] NZHC 3291

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3291
Court

High Court

The application for a without‑notice stay was dismissed because interim relief was not necessary to preserve Mr Singh's position: the hearing did not render his substantive challenge nugatory, the special general meeting could not supplant the Board's rule‑based power over membership, there was insufficient evidence of adjudicator pre‑determination, and the applicant's delay in seeking relief weighed against granting a stay; accordingly the relief sought was premature.
5 May 2010

HALLETT V GAY HC AK CIV-2011-404-000173

Citation

openlaw-337d8866_8e81_4c1f_94a9_c6a67da80911.pdf
Court

High Court

The Registrar's refusal to accept the documents for filing was upheld because the purported appeal belonged in the Court of Appeal and the mandamus application was not commenced in accordance with Part 5 of the High Court Rules and therefore the documents did not comply with the Rules.

New Zealand Case Law

SINGH v AUCKLAND CO-OPERATIVE TAXI SOCIETY LTD [2016] NZHC 1940

SINGH v AUCKLAND CO-OPERATIVE TAXI SOCIETY LTD & ANOR [2016] NZHC 642

SINGH v AUCKLAND CO-OPERATIVE TAXI SOCIETY LTD [2015] NZHC 3291

HALLETT V GAY HC AK CIV-2011-404-000173