New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Venue transfer

Legal area

Court

2 Sept 2021

C & R CONSTRUCTION LIMITED v TAHAROA IRONSANDS LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2288

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2288
Court

High Court

On balance there was no overall advantage in transferring the trial to Wellington: Taharoa would not suffer significant inconvenience if the trial remained in Hamilton, C & R Construction demonstrated greater inconvenience if required to try the case in Wellington but not to a decisive extent, and availability of hearing dates did not decisively favour Wellington; accordingly the application to change venue was dismissed and the court fixed the trial in Hamilton beginning 31 October 2022 with a telephone case management conference in the week of 27 September 2021.
9 Jun 2021

WYNDHAM CONTRACTING LTD v WEBBLINE AGRICULTURE LTD [2021] NZHC 1341

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1341
Court

High Court

Weighing the factors for convenience and fairness, particularly the number and location of witnesses (predominantly Southland witnesses and expert evidence for plaintiffs), and the strong factual connection to Southland, the court was affirmatively satisfied the trial can be more conveniently and fairly tried in Invercargill; accordingly the proceedings are transferred and the trial is to be held in Invercargill and all subsequent steps taken there.
21 Feb 2020

SHARMA v AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2020] NZHC 230

Citation

[2020] NZHC 230
Court

High Court

The Court held the respondent lawfully exercised its contractual discretion under Article 7.1.11 after a documented investigation and warning; the applicant failed to establish an arguable breach of contract or the high degree of assurance required for a mandatory interim injunction that would effectively determine the claim; the balance of convenience favored the respondent given staff safety and the finite 12 month ban, therefore interim relief and venue transfer were dismissed.
19 Jul 2019

BIGGS v BIGGS [2019] NZHC 1705

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1705
Court

High Court

The Court ordered the hearing be transferred to Auckland because, on balance, convenience for counsel and primary witnesses and the greater flexibility of judicial resources in Auckland outweighed the value of the current Judge's interlocutory familiarity; the Court directed specific case management steps including allocation of a three-week trial period and deadlines for amended pleadings.
10 Nov 2017

HUNTER v ATTORNEY-GENERAL SUED ON BEHALF OF THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE AND THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE [2017] NZHC 2767

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2767
Court

High Court

The Attorney-General on behalf of the New Zealand Police is the correct defendant for the police conduct; the Attorney-General on behalf of the Ministry of Justice is not an appropriate defendant and is removed; the JP enjoys statutory immunity unless conduct exceeded or was without jurisdiction (a threshold requiring gross negligence or bad faith) and the current pleadings do not meet that threshold so the JP must be joined personally and pleadings amended if the plaintiff intends to pursue that claim; absent joinder of the JP the matter is within District Court jurisdiction and will be tran…
26 Mar 2015

VIGOR-BROWN v THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED [2015] NZHC 582

Citation

[2015] NZHC 582
Court

High Court

Late filing of the r 5.1(3) affidavit was excused but the plaintiffs could not rely on Rotorua as the registry nearest the first-named plaintiff (who lives in Tauranga); on the facts overall convenience and the r 1.2 objectives favoured transfer to Auckland (defendant's residence and head office, counsel and witnesses, availability of earlier trial dates and need for expedition given age of claim and limitation concerns), so the Court ordered transfer to Auckland and awarded costs to the defendant on a 2B basis.
10 Oct 2011

YANDINA INVESTMENTS LTD V ANZ NATIONAL BANK LTD HC WN CIV-2010-485-002582

Citation

openlaw-6c58e459_333d_4af3_b99f_0a06b08d701e.pdf
Court

High Court

Balancing factors of convenience and fairness showed the majority of relevant witnesses, party business units and counsel were in Auckland, no unfair prejudice to Yandina was established, and therefore the proceeding can be more conveniently and fairly tried in Auckland; transfer ordered under r10.1.
14 May 2010

AXIAM ENGINEERING LIMITED V JB SALES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED HC WANG CIV-2009-483-349

Citation

openlaw-97a137a3_01da_42cc_924f_44bf83344444.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because there are substantial and genuine factual and expert conflicts concerning whether the couplers met the contractual A5 quality specifications, the causes of failures, delays and whether the defendant was entitled to reject goods or to put the supply agreement on hold; these issues require full trial. The transfer application was dismissed because a material part of the cause of action arose in Wanganui (payments and some contractual terms and performance) and convenience did not justify transfer; costs to lie where they fall.
16 Jul 2008

MISIUK V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR HC AK CIV 2008-404-3642

Citation

openlaw-823da7f6_c4da_4c77_9273_100879e18d64.pdf
Court

High Court

The appellant failed to show that the balance of convenience clearly favored hearing the appeal in Auckland rather than Wellington under r708(3); therefore the appeal will be heard in Wellington and the file is to be transferred and placed on the Wellington appeals list.
13 Dec 2007

ROBERT ERWOOD V JANET MAXTED AND JANET MAXTED AND ALEXANDER JAMES JEREMY GLASGOW AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD ERWOOD AND ANOR CA CA631/07

Citation

openlaw-8c0d0043_8f1c_4dd5_ad23_28800281ea8c.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

A limited stay of public advertising and calling of a creditors meeting was granted because material issues about venue and the applicant's capacity warranted further appellate consideration, and the balance of convenience and availability of alternative recovery methods meant the stay would not unduly prejudice creditors pending determination of the appeals.