New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay and strike out

Legal area

Court

4 Feb 2022

JONES v NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE AND LEASING LIMITED [2022] NZHC 93

Citation

[2022] NZHC 93
Court

High Court

Recusal was refused because the bias allegations were general, subjective and did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias; leave to appeal interlocutory decisions was dismissed because the high statutory threshold was not met, the issues are subsidiary and will be addressed in the substantive appeal, and no public importance justified immediate interlocutory appeal; recall of the earlier judgment was unnecessary for the same reasons.
2 Jul 2021

D v RMC [2021] NZHC 1633

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1633
Court

High Court

The proceeding is a duplicative parallel action to an existing judicial review and, on its face, is an abuse of process and vexatious; the appropriate and proportionate remedy is to stay the proceeding until the related judicial review is finally determined, to withhold documents for service while stayed, and to prohibit applications to lift the stay until further order.
31 Mar 2021

LESLIE NORMAN AUSTIN v ROCHE PRODUCTS (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2021] NZSC 30

Citation

[2021] 1 NZLR 194
Court

Supreme Court

Section 133(5) bars the courts from considering or granting remedies in relation to matters governed by the Act once a claim with a right of review or appeal is made; the appellant's challenge could and should have been pursued under the Act's Part 5 review and appeal procedures (including applying for late review under s135), and being out of time does not evade the statutory bar; accordingly the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the substantive civil claim.
1 Nov 2019

MONCRIEF-SPITTLE v REGIONAL FACILITIES AUCKLAND LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2828

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2828
Court

High Court

Respondents were awarded Category 2B costs of $46,532 plus disbursements of $940; the court rejected the applicants' public interest argument because the litigation was driven by private self-interest lacking a watchdog quality and held the withdrawal of the interlocutory application due to new information did not justify an uplift, and declined to award uplift for discovery/strike out matters because the related applications were undetermined.
2 Oct 2019

ZHOU v YUE [2019] NZHC 2167

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2167
Court

High Court

The High Court held that the Family Court has jurisdiction to decide ownership of Lot C under the PRA where legal title is held by a party and the third party is a claimant; because the plaintiff elected to participate in the Family Court and the same substantial issue (true ownership of Lot C) was already before that court, commencing duplicative High Court proceedings was an abuse of process; accordingly the High Court proceeding was stayed pending determination of ownership in the Family Court, and costs awarded to the defendant on a 2B basis.
24 Feb 2015

BURDEN v PLANTATION GROWN TIMBERS (INTL) LTD [2015] NZHC 263

Citation

[2015] NZHC 263
Court

High Court

An order for security for costs was warranted because plaintiffs are resident/incorporated outside New Zealand, there was troubling evidence of unpaid costs ordered against the plaintiffs in Irish proceedings and inadequate disclosure of the plaintiffs' overall financial position; however, to avoid denying access to justice the security should be staged. Staggered security payments totalling NZD 75,000 with a stay of proceedings if payments are not made appropriately balance defendant protection and plaintiffs' access.

New Zealand Case Law

JONES v NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE AND LEASING LIMITED [2022] NZHC 93

D v RMC [2021] NZHC 1633

LESLIE NORMAN AUSTIN v ROCHE PRODUCTS (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2021] NZSC 30

MONCRIEF-SPITTLE v REGIONAL FACILITIES AUCKLAND LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2828

ZHOU v YUE [2019] NZHC 2167

BURDEN v PLANTATION GROWN TIMBERS (INTL) LTD [2015] NZHC 263