New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Review vs appeal

Legal area

Court

9 Sept 2021

GINIVAN v SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES (Costs Judgment) [2021] NZHC 2354

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2354
Court

High Court

Indemnity costs were declined to avoid double penalising the plaintiffs for the same misconduct and because plaintiffs were entitled to challenge the unless order; however, uplifted scale costs were warranted because the application advanced multiple meritless grounds, stemmed from a mistaken belief about appeal rights, and required disproportionate preparation; result: 2B scale costs with a 20% uplift and reasonable disbursements awarded to defendant.
20 Dec 2018

AUDIO ESSENTIALS LTD v TRIPATHI & ORS [2018] NZHC 3425

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3425
Court

High Court

The Court lacks jurisdiction to review the Associate Judge's summary judgment decision in the High Court (such challenges must be appealed to the Court of Appeal), but the Court had jurisdiction to review the strike out of a counterclaim that relates to a proceeding pending before 1 March 2017; on the merits the counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action (failed to plead elements of negligence or contract) and was properly struck out, so the review was dismissed and related applications (stay and leave to adduce evidence) were refused.
15 Apr 2016

ARCHITECTURE AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT LTD v WINDOWMAKERS LTD [2016] NZHC 700

Citation

[2016] NZHC 700
Court

High Court

Disclosure of the plaintiff's funding arrangement was not ordered because no basis for disclosure was shown and the defendants had the opportunity to seek such disclosure earlier; leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed second appeal did not raise a question of law or fact of sufficient importance under the Waller v Hider test as applied by Payne v Attorney-General and would not justify the cost and delay; costs for the review hearing were awarded to Mr Brown in the amount of $5,100.
18 Sept 2015

ARCHITECTURE & PROJECT MANAGEMENT LTD v WINDOWMAKERS LTD [2015] NZHC 2268

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2268
Court

High Court

The Associate Judge's costs decision arose from an interlocutory application properly heard in chambers by an Associate Judge and was therefore amenable to review under s 26P(1); leave to bring the review out of time was granted; on the merits the Associate Judge applied the wrong principle and lacked adequate evidential basis to find the director was the real party entitled to a costs order, so the costs order was set aside.
3 Nov 2011

LAWRENCE RIVERSIDE LIMITED V C P HOLDINGS LIMITED COA CA45/2011

Citation

openlaw-79be579a_4242_49fe_8860_55a2b26f65a6.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction because the Associate Judge's decision was made in chambers under s26J of the Judicature Act 1908 and challenges to such decisions are by way of review in the High Court under s26P(1) and r2.3; therefore the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
20 Jul 2011

PRASAD V INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-3333

Citation

openlaw-727dfb3a_da98_4ec9_8c8e_27737df57123.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court did not have jurisdiction to review the Associate Judge's open Court decision declining annulment because such matters must be heard in open Court under the Judicature Act and are not reviewable under s26P(1); alternatively, s414(1) did not authorise review because the decision was fully considered and reserved. Identified errors in the costs order (GST inclusion) were immaterial to the adjudication given concession by the creditor not to pursue the GST and the existence of multiple unpaid costs orders.
22 May 1998

Wikeepa v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1998] NZACC 109
Court

District Court

Lump sum claim was time-barred under s147 and dismissal of that claim was correct; the Review Officer erred by applying repealed s54(5) at review rather than the statutory provision in force at the time (s54(7)(a)), which permits payment of the independence allowance from the date the claimant lodged a claim for cover (8 March 1992), therefore the decision refusing backdating was revoked and the Corporation must pay the allowance from 8 March 1992.

New Zealand Case Law

GINIVAN v SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES (Costs Judgment) [2021] NZHC 2354

AUDIO ESSENTIALS LTD v TRIPATHI & ORS [2018] NZHC 3425

ARCHITECTURE AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT LTD v WINDOWMAKERS LTD [2016] NZHC 700

ARCHITECTURE & PROJECT MANAGEMENT LTD v WINDOWMAKERS LTD [2015] NZHC 2268

LAWRENCE RIVERSIDE LIMITED V C P HOLDINGS LIMITED COA CA45/2011

PRASAD V INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-3333

Wikeepa v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation