28 Jul 2023
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds are fact‑specific and do not raise questions of general or public importance; the sealed judgments accurately reflected the orders and the recall application lacked merit so the costs award to the New Zealand Law Society was appropriate.
15 Mar 2023
The application to recall was dismissed because the consent direction allowing the Body Corporate to file amended pleadings is the operative direction, paragraph [27] was an obiter observation not a factual error amenable to correction under the slip rule, and the stringent Horowhenua test for recalling a final judgment was not satisfied.
9 Mar 2023
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.
28 Jun 2022
The LCRO's decision was quashed because he applied an incorrect and unduly restrictive abuse-of-process test, breached natural justice by striking out the review without adequate notice or opportunity to respond to an adverse finding, and the Standards Committee's determination and amended s161 certificate contained an obvious clerical error which the court corrected by ordering both instruments amended to state the invoices totalled $52,958.50 excluding GST and disbursements.
23 Jun 2022
The misnaming in the judgment was a clerical slip properly corrected under the slip rule (High Court Rules r 11.10); however, the substantive factual finding regarding whether the second respondent could have anticipated the court reserving judgment cannot be the subject of recall and must instead be challenged on appeal.
7 Jun 2022
Leave to appeal the costs review was dismissed because the application did not raise any question of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument of sufficient importance to justify a second appeal after two prior judgments; costs were awarded to the successful defendants in accordance with High Court Rules, using the daily recovery rate in force when the steps were taken; and an arithmetical error in the prior costs award was corrected under the slip rule.
14 Mar 2022
The recall application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any procedural or substantive error in the Court's leave judgment of sufficient significance to warrant recall or to show a miscarriage of justice.
24 Sept 2021
Because a significant jurisdictional deficiency arose from how the destruction order was pursued in the District Court and the High Court identified the proper statutory basis, it was just to exercise the court's discretion under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act to make no order for costs or disbursements despite the respondent's request.
30 Jun 2021
The slip rule correction was declined because there was no accidental slip: the respondents had been served and had actively participated as parties at every stage, including opposing applications and appearing in the appeal, so the costs order against them was properly made and cannot be undone by r 8 as a substitute for an appeal or recall.
27 Aug 2020
The application to set aside the statutory demand is dismissed because Creative failed to demonstrate an arguable substantial dispute: the parties had opportunities to settle the costs and disbursements and Creative's solicitors expressly agreed the figures reflected in the sealed judgment; additionally the statutory demand included an unchallenged costs component, and any procedural flaw would not have produced a different outcome or shown prejudice warranting relief.