New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Review of associate judge decision

Legal area

Court

24 Aug 2017

VENKATASWAMY v KODOOR & ANOR [2017] NZHC 2038

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2038
Court

High Court

Doogue AJ's decision is upheld: New Zealand is the appropriate forum because the central transactions and agreements arose in New Zealand, the defendants failed to establish that India was plainly a more appropriate forum, discovery and witness evidence relevant to disputed payments can be obtained for a New Zealand trial (including by compelling parties' disclosure or by audiovisual evidence/letters of request), and the Indian police complaint does not make India a clearly preferable forum for substantial justice.
17 Feb 2017

CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v SISSON [2017] NZHC 188

Citation

[2017] NZHC 188
Court

High Court

The Associate Judge correctly refused the broad particular discovery because the documents sought were not relevant or proportionate to the pleaded ownership and vesting issues, and the applicant failed to show the Associate Judge's reasoned decision was wrong; accordingly the application to review is dismissed.
16 Feb 2017

SISSON v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZHC 175

Citation

[2017] NZHC 175
Court

High Court

The review application was dismissed because the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proving Associate Judge Osborne's strike out was wrong; the strike out was supported by findings that the applicant lacked standing and that the proceeding was a collateral attack and abuse of process while an appeal on the liquidation judgment is outstanding, and therefore dismissal of the review was justified.
21 Aug 2013

HOLM-HANSEN v JOHNSON [2013] NZHC 2129

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2129
Court

High Court

The review partly succeeds: the Associate Judge was correct to refuse to strike out the plaintiff's civil claims concerning access/interest in the Whau Bay property and correct to refuse to strike out the 'bundle of rights' cause of action because the doctrine is undeveloped and the claims relate to trust interests left open by the s21 agreement; however the PRA ss44 and 44C claims (disposition to defeat) are struck out as untenable because Mr Johnson could not have intended in 1992 to defeat rights that did not legally exist until legislative change in 2001, and those PRA claims were encompa…
2 Jul 2013

AI ROBERTSON v EK GILBERT [2013] NZHC 1589

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1589
Court

High Court

Associate Judge Bell's minute was wrong because it incorrectly found the $23,100 monetary adjustment had been satisfied by application in reduction of the costs award; material contrary evidence and relevant prior decisions were not considered, therefore the High Court granted the review, ordered sealing of the original judgment and issued the charging orders sought, and apportioned costs accordingly.
10 May 2013

FAVA v OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE HC AK CIV-2011-404-4669

Citation

openlaw-efeba783_7f38_438f_9771_b746cd1545e5.pdf
Court

High Court

The application to review was dismissed because the Associate Judge's findings—that Mr Fava intentionally failed to comply with a security for costs order, acted contumeliously and caused prejudice to the creditor—were not shown to be wrong or based on an erroneous principle; allowing the review would perpetuate abusive collateral litigation and undermine finality, justifying striking out the review application.
22 Feb 2013

PERRIAM V WILKES & ORS HC AK CIV-2009-425-284

Citation

openlaw-66d415cf_7267_48af_a3bb_4ac232646cc2.pdf
Court

High Court

The review application under s 26P is an interlocutory proceeding for the purposes of the High Court Rules so r 5.45 jurisdiction applies; on the material before the Court the plaintiff is likely unable to meet a reasonable costs award for the review and there is no clear basis to conclude her impecuniosity was caused by the defendants; balancing the parties' interests the Court exercised its discretion to order security for costs of $10,000 payable by specified date, with an unless order staying the proceeding if security is not paid.
8 Dec 2011

RE/MAX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V BAY CITIES REAL ESTATE LIMITED COA CA691/2011

Citation

COA CA691/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court refused special leave because White J did not err in law: he correctly interpreted 'likely' in r17.29 as requiring a real and substantial risk/probability of a substantial miscarriage of justice; a contractual no set-off clause does not automatically bar the exercise of the court's discretion to grant a stay of enforcement; and issues about guarantors' means were factual and not a proper basis for special leave.
22 Sept 2009

BALZAT V ZHANG HC AK CIV 2008-404-6062

Citation

openlaw-898acb6a_bce1_431f_ac82_e298598fc899.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court had jurisdiction to review an Associate Judge's chambers decision under s26P; on the merits the purported assignment and subsequent proceedings were manufactured and lacked plausible factual foundation and timing, so there was no "genuine triable" cross claim equal to or exceeding the judgment debt that could not have been raised earlier; accordingly review is dismissed and Associate Judge Robinson's dismissal is upheld.
21 Sept 2009

RAJENDRA PRASAD V INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LTD AND ORS CA CA412/2009

Citation

openlaw-6b6ef0d2_604c_4829_98cc_208cab34ceb9.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction because s 26P(1AA) of the Judicature Act 1908 requires an applicant to obtain leave from the High Court before seeking special leave from this Court to appeal a High Court Judge's review of an Associate Judge; no such High Court leave had been sought, so the Court could not grant special leave.