New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adjournment applications

Legal area

Court

3 Aug 2023

WONG v R [2023] NZCA 341

Citation

[2023] NZCA 341
Court

Court of Appeal

No miscarriage of justice was established and the trial judge's discretionary decisions on the adjournment, juror exclusion, admissibility of text messages and police interview, and summing up directions were lawful and did not unfairly prejudice the appellant; similarly the sentencing starting point, uplift and discounts were within range and the sentence of 10 years 8 months was not manifestly excessive, so both appeals were dismissed.
17 Nov 2022

NGUY v BCH INVESTMENTS LTD [2022] NZCA 561

Citation

[2022] NZCA 561
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the trial Judge correctly exercised discretion in refusing adjournments given the consensual setting down, the appellant had access to the evidential material in the trial bundle and was able to represent himself adequately, the scope of the retainer plainly included OIO advice which was not given, causation was established and there was no basis to displace the High Court findings or order a retrial where no realistic prospect of a different outcome exists.
31 Mar 2022

MOLETA v DARLOW [2022] NZHC 620

Citation

[2022] NZHC 620
Court

High Court

Award 2B scale costs to Jolene Schollum and Lorraine Moleta for successful FPA and interlocutory applications; decline 25% uplift for one FPA step; deny second counsel certification; award 50% uplift for all steps relating to the Constructive Trust claim because that claim lacked merit and plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with rules and directions, thereby contributing unnecessarily to time and expense; costs to be borne by plaintiff Dellisse Moleta personally and may be paid from her share of the estate subject to authority.
26 Jun 2019

MINISTER OF EDUCATION v H CONSTRUCTION NORTH ISLAND LTD (IN REC AND LIQ) [2019] NZHC 1459

Citation

[2019] 24 PRNZ 549
Court

High Court

McConnell Ltd was ordered to pay non-party costs because it funded and guaranteed Hawkins' defence, had oversight and tacit approval of litigation strategy, and exploited Hawkins' insolvency while funding a substantial defence; this conduct satisfied the 'something more' threshold for non-party costs. The McConnell directors were not held personally liable because they did not inject personal funds nor was there evidence they personally benefited from the litigation strategy.
31 May 2019

SIDDIQUI v R [2019] NZCA 196

Citation

[2019] NZCA 196
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court refused the adjournment and dismissed the appeal because the guilty pleas were entered voluntarily and with understanding; the appellant initiated plea negotiations, had competent representation, and could not identify any tenable defence given his use of forged documents, so no miscarriage of justice arose from declining to vacate the pleas.
17 Oct 2018

HULJICH v HULJICH & ORS [2018] NZHC 2682

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2682
Court

High Court

Indemnity costs were appropriate under r14.6(4)(a) and (b) because the plaintiff repeatedly ignored court directions and caused unnecessary interlocutory steps; quantum reduced because two senior counsel were unnecessary for interlocutory work, resulting in an award of indemnity costs of NZD 83,681.18, payable within 20 working days or the plaintiff's claim will be struck out.
18 Jul 2017

Flujo Holdings Pty Limited v Merisant Company [2017] NZHC 1656

Citation

[2017] NZAR 1395
Court

High Court

The Court declined Merisant's application to vary the notice of discontinuance and to prohibit refiling: it was not satisfied the Court has (or should exercise) an inherent jurisdiction to make the sweeping bar sought, and on the evidence Flujo's late discontinuance did not amount to an abuse of process warranting that relief; instead Flujo was ordered to pay Merisant costs (scale 2B with exclusions), a 40% contribution to actual pre-trial wasted costs ($58,035), and specified disbursements.
10 May 2017

MCKAY BUILDERS LIMITED (IN LIQ) v MCKAY [2017] NZHC 934

Citation

[2017] NZHC 934
Court

High Court

The High Court retained jurisdiction because the dispute is not an employment relationship problem but concerns the proper classification of payments recorded as shareholder drawings; leave under s248(1)(c) was declined because there was no jurisdictional bar and delay and futility factors weighed against leave; an adjournment was declined because the proposed accounting evidence could not establish employment status, would not determine all claims, and would unfairly prejudice plaintiffs and court resources; plaintiffs were permitted to proceed by formal proof hearing and costs awarded.
23 Feb 2016

APN HOLDINGS NZ LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZHC 244

Citation

[2016] NZHC 244
Court

High Court

Judge accepted plaintiffs could not meaningfully brief their principal witness on subpoenaed RBS documents before trial, the documents were highly relevant to objective purpose and effect, and responsible opening could not occur without adequate briefing; the Commissioner's delay in obtaining the subpoena contributed to the prejudice; on balance the interests of justice required granting an adjournment and specific timetable orders were made.
25 Sept 2014

NAS v LMB [2014] NZHC 2345

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2345
Court

High Court

The application to adduce further evidence was dismissed because the s132 report had been before the Family Court and considered by the judge, the author's absence did not constitute a special reason to depart from the rule that appeals are rehearings on the record, and any necessity for oral evidence should have been addressed by adjournment at first instance.