18 Mar 2022
The application for a stay was dismissed because the appeal did not have strong prospects given the factual basis of the summary judgment, First Honey had avenues to raise or secure funds and had caused its own predicament by spending the money, and on balance of convenience the interests of justice did not require a stay.
22 Feb 2022
The recall was allowed because the applicant had diligently pursued his remedies and, absent amendment, the lapsed stay would defeat his collateral appeal; accordingly the Court reissued its judgment to amend the stay to continue until further order while permitting respondent or ACC to apply to discharge it for lack of diligence or other grounds.
10 Feb 2022
The application for stay was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied a stay would serve the child's welfare, the appeal would not be rendered nugatory if a stay was refused, and there were no compelling status quo grounds given the High Court's orders involved only minor adjustments to the Family Court arrangement.
9 Sept 2021
The application for recall is declined because although the Court erred in overlooking a High Court stay, that error did not undermine the rationale for the payment condition imposed when granting the extension of time to appeal; the conditions remain proportionate and the circumstances do not meet the narrow test for recall under Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2).
19 May 2021
All applications were dismissed: recall failed because no very special reason or material issue warranting recall; leave to appeal cannot be granted by this Court as the correct procedure lies with the Court of Appeal and the 20 working day window had expired; interim suppression was refused because the evidence did not establish harm causally attributable to the 5 March 2021 judgment and open justice outweighed suppression; stay was refused because there was no active appeal/leave application before the Court and the balance favoured the respondent; due to allegations of risk the court direc…
21 Dec 2020
The Court held the plaintiffs could recover legal expenses as damages to the extent those expenses were not for work on these proceedings, allowed the plaintiffs' claimed legal expenditure subject to a $538.20 deduction and limited the award to the amount originally claimed ($38,313.46), directed that costs be assessed on the High Court scale under r14.13 given the circumstances, allowed the majority of expert fees and disbursements but disallowed specific items (subpoena service fee $195.50, filing fee $200, sealing charging order $100), and ordered the judgment not be executed pending deter…
13 May 2020
Because the sale had settled and the dealing had been submitted for registration prior to the interim stay taking effect, and because r 12 relief is confined to protecting the position to be decided on appeal and cannot grant orders affecting a non‑party purchaser, extending the interim stay would be futile and was discharged.
13 Nov 2019
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and order Mr Stanley's admission; the parties were directed to address whether the respondent's name could be removed from the roll if the appeal succeeds and the relevance of s 41 and of the failure to challenge the Court of Appeal stay decision.
18 Oct 2019
A stay of the costs judgment is granted on the condition that the amount of the costs judgment is paid into the respondent's solicitor trust account by 31 October 2019 to be held and disbursed according to the outcome of the Disputes Tribunal hearing on 11 November 2019; if payment is not made the stay lapses automatically, and if Energy Saving is unsuccessful the funds must be released to Moorhouse and Moorhouse must refrain from commencing liquidation proceedings while the funds are held.
6 Aug 2019
The balance of convenience favours refusing a stay because the appellant's immediate ability to earn a livelihood as an admitted lawyer is the dominant factor, refusal does not render the Society's potential appeal nugatory as removal from the roll remains available, and the appellant will be admitted aware of the risk of subsequent removal if the Society succeeds on appeal.