New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Timetabling

Legal area

Court

27 Sept 2021

JOHNSON v JOHNSON [2021] NZHC 2540

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2540
Court

High Court

The adjournment was declined because the core evidence was already filed and the remaining work was largely administrative collation or manageable expert briefing; counsel withdrawal alone (without detailed affidavit evidence of inability to prepare) did not justify vacating a fixture set over a year earlier; the prejudice and delay to other parties and the public interest in finality outweighed the applicant's claim of unfairness, and practical measures (handover by withdrawn counsel, timetable adjustments) could preserve a fair hearing.
4 Dec 2018

SILA v NANAI-LEOTA [2018] NZHC 3163

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3163
Court

High Court

The plaintiff is impecunious, provided no credible evidence of assets accessible to meet costs, and failed to honor an agreed security arrangement; balancing access to courts against defendant's protection from costs exposure, the Court fixed the $10,000 already paid into Court as security for costs, awarded costs to the defendant on a category 2B basis with payment by 21 December 2018, and varied the timetable to protect the defendant's position.
6 Jun 2018

RAMANAIDU v CIBORIUM LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1303

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1303
Court

High Court

The judge concluded that the defendants would be unfairly prejudiced if forced to a hearing within two weeks given the plaintiff's recent detailed denials in the late-filed reply; accordingly the trial was adjourned to the first available back-up fixture in two months and timetabling orders were made, with costs of the adjournment to lie where they fall.
20 Jan 2017

KI COMMERCIAL LTD v CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 28

Citation

[2017] NZHC 28
Court

High Court

The adjournment was refused because the appellant, having filed the notice of appeal, was bound to comply with directions; experienced counsel were able to prepare the legal issues within the available time without the director's presence; the public interest in avoiding delay to finalise the replacement plan and the risk of prejudice to the respondent outweighed the appellant's claimed hardships.
19 Feb 2014

SAINSBURY LOGAN & WILLIAMS v BELL [2014] NZHC 221

Citation

[2014] NZHC 221
Court

High Court

The application for security for costs was dismissed because the defendant demonstrated sufficient liquid funds (NZ$815,658) so the r 5.45 threshold was not met; further, even if the threshold were met the court would not order security because many counterclaims are independent and the marginal advantage of security did not make an order just, though the first and eighth causes are in substance defences.
25 Mar 2013

EDWARDS V THE DISTRICT COURT, DUNEDIN HC DUN CIV 2013-412-000001

Citation

openlaw-10a5f622_9dcd_4896_9ec8_67a59b7e7916.pdf
Court

High Court

Cross-examination of the third respondent was refused because judicial review is normally determined on affidavits, nothing in the applicant's material showed the third respondent caused the alleged procedural unfairness, and therefore cross-examination would serve no useful purpose; instead the Court directed case management steps including a joint memorandum and a timetabling conference.
15 Apr 2011

ALESCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC AK CIV 2009-404-2145

Citation

openlaw-25d78858_1922_4db8_8aef_7615b5fdbebb.pdf
Court

High Court

Adjournment for RadioWorks and TVWorks was granted because the Court of Appeal's decision rendered the planned September fixture impossible and returned discovery matters to the Associate Judge; Alesco was granted priority because it was ready to proceed and the court allocated a three-week trial beginning 12 September 2011; Telstra 2 was not allocated as a reserve fixture because that would unfairly burden the Alesco timetable; the stay on the Toll proceeding was lifted due to the public interest and significant tax at issue; detailed disclosure and timetabling directions were made to ensure…
29 Feb 2008

HAYLOCK V PATEK HC AK CIV.1999-404-899

Citation

openlaw-b08be59f_646e_4f80_8a39_b1009edc75bf.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to discontinue was granted unconditionally to the fourth plaintiff; the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the Wellington settlement agreement was sufficiently relevant and necessary to warrant discovery and the application for its disclosure was dismissed; discovery of the four witness statements was dismissed as superfluous because r 441J(e) prevents parties using statements served in other proceedings before they are given in evidence; a non-party discovery order against Abano Healthcare was granted; the pre-trial timetable was amended and trial commencement confirmed for 5 May 20…
12 Jun 2007

A V C HC AK CIV 2005-404-3123

Citation

openlaw-e1681b6d_60dc_4c85_8a64_ad0efe299bfa.pdf
Court

High Court

Adjournment was refused because the pending criminal prosecution was unlikely to impede the applicant's ability to place relevant evidence before the Court, the applicant's health grounds were raised late and unconvincingly, and the respondent's interest in finality and his health, together with delay attributable to the applicant, outweighed any prejudice; costs were awarded to the respondent on a 2B basis and an unless order was made requiring payment of outstanding costs of $4,930 by 22 June 2007 or the applicant would be debarred from appearing at the scheduled hearing.
6 Oct 1995

ABC v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1995] NZACC 116
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal to the High Court was granted because the appeal raised numerous questions of law, particularly concerning the transitional provisions of the 1992 Act, which required authoritative determination by the High Court; the District Court refused to impose timetabling restraints or order respondent to pay appellant's costs and reserved costs on the leave application.