18 Aug 2022
The application to stay or dismiss was dismissed because the Fair Trading Act and passing off causes of action could not be said to have no prospect of success or to be an abuse of process given the pleaded facts; the statutory opposition process did not plainly and necessarily preclude these causes of action and dismissal at this interlocutory stage was not justified.
14 Dec 2021
The plaintiffs' causes of action accrued no later than the dates of the change of herd status (May–July 2008) and the prosecution/acquittal (commenced April 2009; acquitted 8 December 2014); limitation periods under the Limitation Act 1950 expired well before the statement of claim (11 December 2020); plaintiffs failed to plead or prove any arguable fraudulent concealment or late knowledge to postpone or disapply limitation; accordingly the pleading is time-barred and must be struck out as an abuse of process and frivolous/vexatious, and judgment entered for defendants.
18 Nov 2021
The settlement agreement's release clause, construed objectively and read with its recitals, was sufficiently clear and all‑encompassing to discharge Vero from any claims arising directly or indirectly out of or in connection with the earthquake activity and the policy (including the claim for return of premiums); accordingly summary judgment for Vero was justified and FibreTech's appeal was dismissed.
17 Jun 2019
Waitakere Farms Ltd obtained registered title under s105 Land Transfer Act 1952 when acquired from a mortgagee exercising a power of sale; Moore J's removal of the caveat was a final determination that the mortgagee (Nags Head) did not know of or consent to the 2009 agreement to lease, so the unregistered lease and the residential tenancy did not bind the purchaser absent actual fraud or mortgagee consent; Epsom Woods Ltd (as privy to the caveator) cannot assert greater rights than the caveator and has no arguable cause of action, so summary judgment for the defendant was granted.
4 Jul 2014
The fourth cause of action was struck out because the issues it raises are the same as those already subject to the Tax Administration Act Part 4A/8A processes and an appeal was pending; the pleading is a duplicative collateral attack and abuse of process and the High Court will not accept jurisdiction to relitigate matters properly dealt with under the statutory scheme. Security for costs of $40,000 was justified given the Trust's inability to demonstrate ability to pay costs and the likely costs exposure to the Commissioner.
19 Dec 2007
At least some of the proposed boundary adjustments (notably lots 323 and 324) altered site area by more than 10% and therefore were not permitted under rule 2.1(a); s218(3) does not treat an undivided share separated by a cadastral boundary as forming a single continuous allotment for subdivision purposes, so the 'complete site' argument fails; the Council was obliged to refuse the certificate of compliance for the particular package proposed and the Environment Court correctly struck out the appeal and declined rehearing.