New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out for failure to prosecute

Legal area

Court

19 Mar 2021

WILLIGERS v CHURCHILL FISHING INTERNATIONAL LTD [2021] NZHC 565

Citation

[2021] NZHC 565
Court

High Court

The claim was struck out and the caveat ordered to lapse because the plaintiff abandoned prosecution of the proceedings, failed to comply with the consent order condition to diligently pursue substantive proceedings, thereby abusing the court's processes and causing serious prejudice to the defendants; justice required strike out and lapse of the caveat and an award of costs to defendants.
8 Oct 2020

WORLDCLAIM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v GUY EDWARD SAYERS [2020] NZHC 2573

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2573
Court

High Court

The Court awarded the defendant costs for the specified unresolved interlocutory steps because the plaintiff was unsuccessful overall, rejected the defendant's claim for costs where no notice of opposition or supporting affidavits were filed and rejected re‑claiming items already determined on the court file; consent to vary did not, on the materials, resolve costs absent explicit agreement.
9 Apr 2020

NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZSC 31

Citation

[2020] NZSC 31
Court

Supreme Court

Extension of time to apply for leave was granted but leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to take the only practical step available (payment of security for costs), the appeal had not progressed since 2017, the issues were fact specific and did not raise public importance or a real risk of miscarriage of justice as required by s 74, and therefore the strike out by the Court of Appeal was justified.
6 Apr 2020

NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE v ATTORNEY_x001e_GENERAL [2020] NZSC 29

Citation

[2020] NZSC 29
Court

Supreme Court

Extension of time to apply for leave was granted because the applicant explained the delay and no prejudice to respondents was shown; leave to appeal was dismissed because the appeal had been dormant for years, the applicant failed to pay ordered security for costs and failed to prosecute with due diligence, the dispute involved a small sum and raised no point of principle or appearance of miscarriage of justice, so the strike-out was appropriate.
14 Nov 2019

REEKIE v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZCA 557 [14 November 2019]

Citation

[2019] NZCA 557
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was struck out because the appellant failed to prosecute with due diligence and dispatch, years passed without adequate explanation and security for costs was not paid, preventing progression of the appeal.
14 Nov 2019

FINLAY v SNEDDEN SOLICITORS NOMINEE COMPANY LIMITED [2019] NZCA 561

Citation

[2019] NZCA 561
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was struck out because the appellant failed to pay court-ordered security for costs and failed to prosecute the appeal with due diligence for several years, authorising striking out under r 44A(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.
3 May 2016

MEMELINK v GRINDLAY [2016] NZHC 871

Citation

[2016] NZHC 871
Court

High Court

Strike-out was inappropriate because the plaintiff's causes of action could not be said to be untenable, delays were not wholly inexcusable and there had been non-compliance by both parties; however prejudice to the defendant and strain on court resources justified an unless order with strict timetable directions and the sanction of strike out for non-compliance; security for costs was refused for lack of evidence that the plaintiff could not pay costs.
30 Nov 2015

Moffat v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 360
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed and struck out because the appellant failed to comply with explicit court directions to file interim submissions within the time ordered and took no further steps after counsel withdrew, permitting disposal on the papers.
16 May 2012

Heatherbell v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 162
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to apply to review the Corporation's second decision refusing leave for late filing, leaving the Reviewer without jurisdiction; the appellant failed to demonstrate extenuating circumstances or provide supporting evidence for late filing, and consequently failed to prosecute the appeal with due diligence under s161(3).
25 Nov 2008

Rollo v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 282
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to progress the appeal and did not attend the directions hearing despite being notified; accordingly the appeal is struck out pursuant to section 161(3)(b) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001.