New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Registrar review

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2023

ELIAHU v ELIAHU [2023] NZHC 459

Citation

[2023] NZHC 459
Court

High Court

The Registrar erred by allowing cost items (items 30, 32, 33 and 33B of Schedule 3) that apply to affidavit hearings when the dispute concerned an interlocutory contempt/enforcement application for which items 22–29 apply; accordingly the sealed costs order overstated recoverable costs, and the Court must rescind and direct resealing of the costs order in the corrected amount ($10,277.00 plus disbursements $160.00). The Court has jurisdiction to review the Registrar's costs determination and enlarged time to bring the review.
19 Aug 2022

HARRISON v HARRISON [2022] NZCA 386

Citation

[2022] NZCA 386
Court

Court of Appeal

The appellant failed to pay the court-ordered security for costs of $14,120.00 by the deadline and, pursuant to r 37(1) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, the appeal is struck out.
30 Mar 2021

WOOTTON v WOOTTON [2021] NZHC 658

Citation

[2021] NZHC 658
Court

High Court

The Registrar did not err in accepting the bankruptcy notice because there was no information before the Registrar that the part payment had been accepted, presented or applied; a creditor's unexplained retention of a bank cheque raises a factual issue as to acceptance which must be addressed by the creditor before costs are determined, therefore the application to review the Registrar's decision is dismissed and costs are reserved pending the creditor's explanation of the delay in returning the cheque.
23 Oct 2019

MCGUIRE v SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2019] NZCA 512

Citation

[2019] NZCA 512
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time was granted because the applicant demonstrated reasonable diligence, the delay was short and caused by a genuine misunderstanding, the appeal was not plainly hopeless, and the respondent would not suffer real prejudice; security for costs was reduced to $6,600 and the appellant ordered to apply for a hearing date within five working days.
18 Feb 2019

MAIN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZSC 2

Citation

[2019] NZSC 2
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction: s71 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 limits criminal appeals to those authorised by Part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and that Part contains no provision permitting appeals to the Supreme Court from Court of Appeal judges' reviews of Registrar or Deputy Registrar decisions; accordingly the Court could not hear the application.
17 Sept 2018

CLEMENTS v THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND [2018] NZCA 373

Citation

[2018] NZCA 373
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for review was declined because Rule 31(1) requires filing the notice of appeal in hard copy by hand delivery or mail; email filing does not meet the rule and inability to courier does not justify non‑compliance.
1 Mar 2018

MCGUIRE v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2018] NZCA 30

Citation

[2018] NZCA 30
Court

Court of Appeal

The review is declined because the applicant conceded he was not unable to pay and simultaneously stated he would proceed regardless of a waiver, so the cumulative requirements of reg 5(2)(b) were not satisfied and the Registrar correctly refused to waive the fees.
27 Jun 2017

Re Rota [2017] NZHC 1445

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1445
Court

High Court

Electronic transmission timestamps control for determining the statutory 'date' of filing under the Act; an originating application electronically received on 3 April 2017 (even after 5 pm but before midnight) is to be treated as filed on 3 April 2017; a supporting affidavit, if missing, is a defect but does not render the originating application outside the statutory timeframe; consequently the Court accepted the five Phoenix Law applications and Mr Shenton's application for filing and upheld the Registrar's rejection of Mr Watkins' application which had been filed with the Crown rather than…
30 Jun 2015

RANI v RAJAN & ANOR CA231/2015 [2015] NZCA 281

Citation

[2015] NZCA 281
Court

Court of Appeal

The Registrar's decision to decline a fee waiver is confirmed because the applicant failed to demonstrate undue hardship; her financial position (modest income and liabilities, principal liability a hire purchase agreement) did not justify waiver.
26 Jun 2014

RIDGE AND RIDGE as trustees of the Sally Ridge Family Trust V PARORE AND LLOYD as trustees of the Parore Family Trust CA165/2014 [2014] NZCA 277

Citation

[2014] NZCA 277
Court

Court of Appeal

The Registrar's decision was upheld because the application to dispense with security was filed outside the permitted time and the Registrar therefore lacked jurisdiction to accept it (Orlov); no extension to give security was granted because appellants failed to demonstrate a real prospect of obtaining funds and the appeal appeared to lack merit, so permitting further delay was unwarranted.