New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Striking out defences

Legal area

Court

19 Oct 2015

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v ELITE EMPIRE LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2546 [16 October 2015]

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2546
Court

High Court

The statements of defence were filed out of time, did not disclose any arguable defence, and the companies failed to produce cogent evidence rebutting the statutory presumption of insolvency arising from non-compliance with the statutory demands; consequently leave to file was refused, defences were struck out and the court exercised its discretion to place both companies into liquidation and appoint liquidators.
7 Nov 2014

WU v MONCUR [2014] NZHC 2776

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2776
Court

High Court

Leave was granted to the first defendant to file a statement of defence out of time because, on balance, the interests of justice required it and there was an arguable defence similar in part to defences already raised by other defendants; however leave was conditional to prevent prejudice and delay: the bad reputation notice was struck out, defences limited to honest opinion and truth, and particulars and evidence must be filed and served by 1.00 pm on 11 November 2014 or the defence will not be considered at trial; costs of $3,482.50 were awarded to the plaintiff payable immediately.
17 Dec 2010

RAILWAY STREET TRUSTEES LIMITED V RAILWAY INVESTMENTS LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-2545

Citation

openlaw-8626e1ef_9ccd_4ad2_b71d_a40aa79bae13.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the defendants failed to comply with the clear and unambiguous terms of the consent memorandum (specifically by not producing a bank account statement identifying the bank and drawdowns and by providing equivocal affidavits), the court must secure compliance to protect interlocutory processes and the trial timetable; an unless order giving defendants a final opportunity to comply by 11 February 2011, failing which their defences will be struck out, is the appropriate and proportionate remedy.
6 Dec 2010

GRACE HADEN AND ANOR V NEIL EDWARD WELLS CA480/2010

Citation

openlaw-a62d4c1d_c1f0_4bc5_9fc4_4caeccaac53a.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave for a second appeal was refused because the proposed appeal did not raise any matter capable of serious argument nor involve an interest of sufficient importance to justify further appeal; the debarment/unless order and striking out were lawful responses to non‑payment and abuse of process and granting leave to challenge the interlocutory order under s 76(5) would unfairly permit a second bite and prejudice the respondent; Judge Joyce's substantive findings on defamation, damages and absence of bias were within lawful discretion.
28 Jun 2007

MCKAY SHIPPING LTD V MIU AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-001038

Citation

openlaw-d89ad205_114f_4d2f_acd6_a434e73584dc.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the defendants wilfully and deliberately breached the Mareva disclosure order, frustrated the purpose of the order, departed the jurisdiction in suspicious circumstances and provided no compliance or affidavits, the court exercised its powers under the High Court Rules to strike out their defences, enter judgment on liability, direct trial for assessment of damages, grant leave to issue arrest warrants and award indemnity costs.

New Zealand Case Law

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v ELITE EMPIRE LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2546 [16 October 2015]

WU v MONCUR [2014] NZHC 2776

RAILWAY STREET TRUSTEES LIMITED V RAILWAY INVESTMENTS LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-2545

GRACE HADEN AND ANOR V NEIL EDWARD WELLS CA480/2010

MCKAY SHIPPING LTD V MIU AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-001038