15 Mar 2021
Because the amended joint proposal complied with the statutory form and procedural requirements, was supported by a majority of creditors both numerically and by value, no s333(3) grounds for refusal were present, and any omission in service detail was immaterial given the improved benefit to creditors, the court approved the creditors' proposal.
19 Sept 2019
Plaintiffs complied with the statutory cancellation procedure in ss 243-251; there was no bona fide defence; court therefore granted possession and awarded rental arrears limited to the period up to the effective cancellation date (5 June 2019), while declining claims for interest and agents' fees absent contractual or pleaded basis.
4 Jul 2018
The court granted approval because the statutory requirements of ss 327, 330 and 331 were satisfied, the proposals were accepted by the required majorities representing all indebtedness, the proposals were reasonable and beneficial to creditors, and no grounds under s 333(3) existed to refuse approval.
19 Feb 2018
The Tribunal's unimproved land value of $370,000 as at 1 September 2015 was supported by comparable sales evidence and market uplift evidence, and the objector failed to discharge the evidential onus to show the Valuer‑General's revaluation was wrong; no legal error justified disturbing the Tribunal's valuation.
12 Dec 2017
The habeas corpus application was dismissed because the defendant proved all statutory requirements under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 were met, a compulsory treatment order application had been made and s15 lawfully maintained B's detention until 19 December 2017, so detention was lawful.
7 Dec 2017
The proposed grounds were without merit: the doctor’s s75 certificate and the statutory authorisation in s69 justified police presence and detention; any failure to specify laboratory or notify the Commissioner under s74(4) was technical and cured by s64(2) because the specimen was delivered to an approved laboratory and untampered; consequently there was no real risk of miscarriage of justice and leave to bring a second appeal was declined.
15 Aug 2017
The application for a stay and interim orders was refused because the balance of convenience favored the respondents: the first respondent would suffer significant and irreparable prejudice (including estimated costs of at least $127,000) from delay, the applicant provided no undertaking as to damages and the appeal lacked seriously arguable grounds in the Judge's view; the applicant's right of appeal was not rendered nugatory because the Court of Appeal could provide substantive relief affecting future operations, and the applicable Operating Plan amendments permitted the planned drop to pro…
14 Oct 2015
The Court approved the proposal because the statutory procedures under ss 327, 330–331 were complied with, the proposal was accepted by the required creditor majorities, the terms were reasonable and calculated to benefit the general body of creditors, and there was no expediency ground under s 333(3) to refuse approval.
7 May 2015
The Court approved the scheme because the proposed amendments and limits on trustee amendment powers facilitate the administration and carrying out of the charitable trust, do not affect the integrity or charitable purpose of the original objects, and comply with the requirements of s56 (and the advertising requirements of s36). The Attorney‑General's report supported these findings.
31 Mar 2015
The Supreme Court dismissed leave because the factual findings showed the delays were justified and did not amount to a breach of s 69 LTA or an unreasonable detention under s 22 NZBORA; the case is fact specific and does not involve a legal error of public or general importance or a miscarriage of justice.