New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Timetabling directions

Legal area

Court

25 Nov 2021

LSK BUILDERS 2011 LIMITED v CHAMBERLAIN [2021] NZHC 3186

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3186
Court

High Court

The appeal succeeded only on the discovery issue: the High Court ordered tailored discovery limited to specified categories (documents relating to the two neighbouring builds: contracts including provisional sums, variations and their costs, geotechnical reports, and final building costs; and the Chamberlains' documentation except agreed exclusions and specified email exchanges). The timetable appeal was dismissed as moot. The District Court costs award relating to the rehearing was quashed and remitted to the District Court for reconsideration; costs of this appeal were to lie where they fal…
12 Apr 2021

TAKIAHO v R [2021] NZCA 107

Citation

[2021] NZCA 107
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with multiple court timetabling directions and a formal notice to file an affidavit, waiver of privilege and witness statements, provided no reasonable explanation, and therefore the Court properly exercised its power under s 338(1) Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to dismiss the appeal.
5 Apr 2019

LYTTELTON PORT CO LTD v AON NEW ZEALAND [2019] NZHC 715

Citation

[2019] NZHC 715
Court

High Court

The court exercised its discretion to grant leave to file the second amended statement of claim against Opus and imposed a timetable for pleading and evidence to manage progression of the proceedings.
15 Feb 2019

MITCHELL v POLICE [2019] NZHC 178

Citation

[2019] NZHC 178
Court

High Court

The appellant failed to comply with court timetabling directions to file points on appeal by the specified date; the court gave the required 10 working days' notice of intention to dismiss under s 338(2), the appellant did not rectify the non‑compliance within that notice period, and accordingly the appeal was properly dismissed under s 338(1) and deemed abandoned under s 338(4); the district court convictions and sentences therefore stand and enforcement/follow‑up directions remain in force.
21 Aug 2017

LMLW LIMITED v ARMSTRONG MURRAY [2017] NZHC 2000

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2000
Court

High Court

The Court declined to direct the defendant to file a statement of defence because rule 12.10 expressly makes filing a statement optional, there was no authority to compel filing, and it was not appropriate to exercise inherent jurisdiction to require a defence in these circumstances.
29 May 2013

PUB CHARITY v DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2013] NZHC 1254

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1254
Court

High Court

Application for further discovery was dismissed because documents of consultation regarding the Gazette notice are not relevant to the plaintiff's pleaded claim seeking to ignore the Gazette limits; the plaintiff must replead if challenging the legality of the notice and may pursue treatment as judicial review; the allocated July fixture was vacated and a new timetable directed by consent.
22 Mar 2012

WHANGAREI HEADS ENTERPRISES LIMITED V ROBINSON HC WHA CIV-2012-488-185

Citation

openlaw-7d652d52_76d6_4a17_ab37_3fccabeea7c4.pdf
Court

High Court

Once the respondent provided sworn identification of the locations of the company property and gave undertakings as to damages there were no further grounds under s 55 to detain him or to retain his passport; the passport must be released and the matter progressed by directions for service and timetabling.
16 Aug 2007

SMITH AND & ORS V (1) COVINGTON SPENCER LTD & ORS HC AK CIV 2005-404-3020

Citation

openlaw-5b227739_baec_42cd_b1f5_ddc180015e0b.pdf
Court

High Court

Security for costs ordered on a several basis: each of the 45 overseas plaintiffs listed in Schedule 1 and the eight New Zealand resident plaintiffs in Schedule 2 must provide a separate ASB Bank bond in the sum of $7,000 to the Registrar by 28 September 2007; pending that date claims are not stayed but will be stayed if security is not posted; leave to apply for further security reserved; consolidation application refused as premature and timetabling directions issued.
3 Aug 2007

SCOTT V SCOTT AND ANOR HC TAU CIV 2004-470-094

Citation

openlaw-74fd0f18_041b_4db7_97d5_7d256878210d.pdf
Court

High Court

Adjournment granted but only on strict conditional terms because the applicant's prolonged failure to secure representation and to comply with timetabling had prejudiced the defendants and the court; conditions (including payment of $10,000 by a fixed date and detailed timetabling with unless consequences) were necessary to protect the respondents and ensure finality, with strike‑out as the sanction for non‑compliance.