New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike-out applications

Legal area

Court

24 Oct 2023

PROMINENT INVESTMENTS LIMITED v QUEST APARTMENT HOTELS (NZ) LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2968

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2968
Court

High Court

Rescission of the interim injunction was declined because a serious question remains to be tried on entitlement to renewal and whether Prominent was disentitled by breach; the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the injunction. Strike-out was refused because enforceability of the limitation clause (clause 29.3) and entitlement to renewal raise substantive legal and factual issues, including public policy and unconscionability questions in the franchise context, which cannot be resolved on a strike-out application and require full trial assessment.
2 Oct 2023

JAYASHREE LTD v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2023] NZHC 2723

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2723
Court

High Court

Leave for the director to represent the company was refused because no emergency or exceptional circumstances justified departing from the Mannix rule, the director lacked professional objectivity and had previously failed to obtain representation despite repeated warnings, the claim disclosed substantive pleading defects and the notice of appeal was non-compliant because it was filed by the director without leave; accordingly the appeal was struck out on procedural grounds, with costs reserved and a solicitor permitted to apply to file a fresh appeal out of time.
10 Mar 2023

TUKŌKŌ AND NGATĪ MOE [2023] NZHC 473

Citation

[2023] NZHC 473
Court

High Court

The court allowed the proposed amendments because the contact and boundary corrections and the reduction of the specified area were proper refinements, and the expanded description of protected customary rights, although broader, was sufficiently connected to the original kaitiakitanga claim such that it was not 'essentially different' or a fresh cause of action barred by s100(2); there was no prejudice to parties and the circumstances were distinguishable from cases where amendments were struck out.
30 Apr 2018

BARTERCARD EXCHANGE LIMITED v DE VRIES [2018] NZHC 854

Citation

[2018] NZHC 854
Court

High Court

The debt relied on was a valid and enforceable judgment debt exceeding $1,000, the debtor committed an act of bankruptcy by failing to comply with the second bankruptcy notice within the statutory period, and there were no sufficient grounds under s 37 to refuse adjudication; accordingly the creditor was prima facie entitled to adjudication and the Court adjudicated the debtor bankrupt.
10 Feb 2017

FRASER v BUTLER [2017] NZHC 120

Citation

(2017) 18 NZCPR 358
Court

High Court

Plaintiff holds a present equitable ownership interest and therefore qualifies as a 'co-owner' for the purposes of ss339 and 341 of the Property Law Act 2007; the strike-out application was dismissed because issues of standing, enforceability of the deed, necessity of BNZ consent and factual disputes about compliance with clause 5 raise contested questions of fact and law unsuitable for summary disposal; specific performance and damages claims are reasonably arguable and require trial-level determination with particulars of loss ordered.
12 May 2009

DR ALI EL-NEMR V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2007-485-1970

Citation

openlaw-52cb4461_9eea_434f_9884_769bdcfdc498.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for a court-appointed lawyer and public funding was dismissed because the case did not meet the exceptional criteria under s99A Judicature Act 1908 and appointing counsel would inappropriately circumvent the legal aid scheme; the proper course is for the plaintiff to pursue legal aid and the strike-out fixture was vacated to allow that process.
22 Sept 2008

N-TECH LIMITED AND ORS V ABOOTH LIMITED (IN REC.) AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-003362

Citation

openlaw-9539e033_fbec_4f3f_9de5_a3b15a525022.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that discovery of documents relating to the retainer and advice provided by Russell McVeagh was necessary and relevant to the determination of Russell McVeagh's summary judgment and strike-out applications; Gosling Chapman and Russell McVeagh must file and serve lists of such documents claiming privilege where relevant, and the court will inspect privileged documents to decide the validity of privilege before ruling on the substantive interlocutory applications.

New Zealand Case Law

PROMINENT INVESTMENTS LIMITED v QUEST APARTMENT HOTELS (NZ) LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2968

JAYASHREE LTD v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2023] NZHC 2723

TUKŌKŌ AND NGATĪ MOE [2023] NZHC 473

BARTERCARD EXCHANGE LIMITED v DE VRIES [2018] NZHC 854

FRASER v BUTLER [2017] NZHC 120

DR ALI EL-NEMR V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2007-485-1970

N-TECH LIMITED AND ORS V ABOOTH LIMITED (IN REC.) AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-003362