New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Witness summons

Legal area

Court

12 Sept 2022

GUO v CULPAN [2022] NZCA 432

Citation

[2022] NZCA 432
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal: the Tribunal's interlocutory rulings were within power given the narrow scope of the pleaded complaint and the Privacy Commissioner's prior handling; refusal to adjourn was justified by delay and lateness of amendments; no apparent bias was demonstrated; the appellant's refusal to submit to cross-examination rendered her evidence of little weight and justified termination of the proceeding rather than further adjournment or remission, so dismissal of the appeal was appropriate and no remittal ordered.
4 May 2022

MITCHELL v R [2022] NZCA 159

Citation

[2022] NZCA 159
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the certified protection order was valid and, given the appellant's history, knowledge could be inferred; the non-contact standard terms applied; the offence was complete when Ms L found the envelopes (contact occurred) so Mr L's evidence was unnecessary and his summons could be set aside; placing mail into the prison mail system constituted a proximate act amounting to an attempt; and the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the persistent flagrant breaches and aggravating features including offending while in custody, therefore both appeals were dismissed.
9 Apr 2020

BUNNINGS LTD v COMMERCE COMMISSION [2020] NZHC 742

Citation

[2020] NZHC 742
Court

High Court

The recall applications were denied because Bunnings failed to demonstrate a factual misapprehension of material facts warranting recall; the asserted factual foundations either were not pleaded or were disputed and capable of correction on appeal, some material was provided voluntarily by Mitre 10 after the District Court decision, and the issues raised are appropriate for appeal rather than rare recall relief.
17 Dec 2019

BUNNINGS LIMITED v COMMERCE COMMISSION [2019] NZHC 3340

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3340
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld Judge Cunningham's rulings: the amended s159 CPA summons was lawful and not an abuse of process because the price-comparison data had been voluntarily supplied to the Commerce Commission and disclosed to Bunnings; use of s159 to secure production and ensure witness attendance was proper; Whitford survey rules do not govern objective automated price-comparison data and Snowden's evidence is admissible provided the underlying electronic comparison datasets are produced as exhibits and disclosed in accordance with CDA obligations.
11 Nov 2019

GUO v CULPAN (NO 2) [2019] NZHC 2935

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2935
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was declined because the applicant did not identify any arguable question of law of general or public importance; the matters complained of were factual or procedural and did not raise legal errors warranting appeal; the Tribunal's strike-out was justified by the applicant's refusal to be cross-examined and allegations of bias were not substantiated.
13 Aug 2019

GUO v CULPAN [2019] NZHC 1963

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1963
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the judicial review and appeal: the Co-Chairperson lawfully struck out irrelevant portions of the applicant's reply evidence; lawfully refused a late witness summons seeking non-party documents of dubious relevance after discovery had closed; lawfully refused an adjournment requested one week before hearing where counsel was available only outside the hearing dates; lawfully declined to recuse as no reasonable apprehension of bias existed; and the Tribunal lawfully struck out the proceeding under s115A as likely to cause prejudice because the applicant steadfastly refused…
21 Dec 2018

NORTH EASTERN INVESTMENTS LIMITED AND HERITAGE LAND LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2018] NZCA 629

Citation

[2018] NZCA 629
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that although the Panel had power to receive material, fairness required the Panel to notify North Eastern that it might rely on Ms Conner's statement after the Council had indicated it would not call her; North Eastern was thereby denied a real opportunity to respond and that procedural unfairness required setting aside the Panel's recommendations and the Council decision in respect of the Albany 5 Precinct and the proposed Albany 5 Sub-Precinct B Business—Mixed Use and directing a re-hearing and re-decision under the LGATPA.
13 Nov 2018

NUKU v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2018] NZHC 2941

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2941
Court

High Court

The subpoenas for Detective Reid and Ms Temm were set aside because they were being used as a means to obtain non-party discovery rather than to produce evidence at hearing, the categories sought were irrelevant to the pleaded judicial review claim or insufficiently specific, and material relating to IPCA investigations was protected by s 33 privilege which had not been waived; the appropriate mechanism is tailored discovery by affidavit. A will-say statement was ordered for the prisoner witness.
27 Mar 2017

GARY OWEN BURGESS v MALLEY & CO [2017] NZSC 38

Citation

[2017] NZSC 38
Court

Supreme Court

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate a proper evidential foundation for removing opposing counsel, the threshold for removal was not met, any additional evidence was likely privileged, and the application did not raise an arguable point of public or general importance nor a risk of substantial miscarriage of justice.
23 Mar 2017

BROWN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZCA 71

Citation

[2017] NZCA 71
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring the second appeals was refused because the matters raised did not involve general or public importance and there was no miscarriage of justice: the trespass notices were validly issued, the refusal to issue witness summonses did not deny fair trial rights, and the sentences were not excessive.