New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adjournment discretion

Legal area

Court

31 May 2021

DIJKSTRA v WELLINGTON FAMILY COURT [2021] NZHC 1260

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1260
Court

High Court

The High Court held there was no breach of natural justice because the applicants had notice of the hearing, knowingly chose not to appear and failed to make use of available procedural remedies or to adduce supporting evidence for an adjournment; registry errors were acknowledged but did not excuse the applicants' non-appearance or failure to seek relief in the Family Court; given the applicants' conduct, delay in bringing judicial review and availability of alternative remedies, discretionary relief was refused and the application dismissed.
16 Jun 2017

EVERS v HEALTHIER HOMES LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) [2017] NZHC 1332

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1332
Court

High Court

The Judge did not err in refusing the adjournment because the appellant and his counsel had persistently failed to comply with timetabling orders, made a last‑minute adjournment application based principally on counsel's ill health without evidencing why alternative arrangements could not be made, and the belated affidavits did not establish a sufficiently strong case under s161(5) that payments were fair to the company; therefore the discretion to refuse adjournment was properly exercised and the appeal must be dismissed.
14 Jun 2016

MOHAMMED V R [2016] NZCA 254

Citation

[2016] NZCA 254
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court granted the extension of time because the Crown suffered no prejudice, and dismissed the appeals on the grounds that the District Court judge did not err in refusing adjournments in the face of the appellant's obstructive conduct, trial counsel provided competent and effective representation so no miscarriage of justice occurred, the summing‑up fairly reflected counsel's addresses and did not misdirect the jury, and the sentence of three years was within the applicable guideline range for low‑level methamphetamine supply and therefore not manifestly excessive.
27 May 2016

RICHARD ZHAO LAWYERS LIMITED v CHEN [2016] NZHC 1134

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1134
Court

High Court

The court held that insolvency set-off under s 254 and s 113(2) permits application of the solicitor's earmarked trust funds of $13,402.25 against the creditor's claims, reducing the debtor's minimum indebtedness to $4,586.05; given the small net sum and the court's discretion, the matter was adjourned and the debtor was given opportunity to pay $4,586.05 by 16 June 2016 or face likely adjudication.
26 Jun 2014

D J HAMPTON v THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE [2014] NZHC 1458

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1458
Court

High Court

The application for annulment is dismissed: under s 309(1)(a) the applicant failed to show the adjudication should not have been made and speculative contention that an adjournment would have been granted is insufficient; under s 309(1)(c) the net proceeds received ($91,000) are insufficient to revive liabilities given Minter Ellison's debt (~$99,152.94) and the Commissioner’s claimed liability (~$925,235.34), and the proceeds are subject to a freezing order, so there has been no substantial change warranting revival of liability.
14 May 2014

COCHRANE and OTHERS v TOTARA PROPERTIES WHANGAREI LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1006

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1006
Court

High Court

The court refused leave to join Mr Swanepoel and refused the adjournment because the balance of justice favoured maintaining the fixed substantive hearing: plaintiffs would suffer prejudice, delay would be substantial (likely up to 12 months), added costs and uncertainty would follow, and defendants can litigate any claims against the solicitor in separate proceedings after liability to plaintiffs is determined; the High Court Rules discretionary factors (including delay to plaintiff and efficient conduct of litigation) therefore weighed against joinder and adjournment.
17 Sept 2013

MINTER ELLISON RUDD WATTS v HAMPTON [2013] NZHC 2434

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2434
Court

High Court

The adjudication was properly made on 5 June 2013 because there was a prior act of bankruptcy and an outstanding debt; funds received before the adjudication do not satisfy s 309(1)(c) which requires a substantial change after adjudication; partial payment is insufficient for s 309(1)(b); accordingly neither s 309(1)(a) nor (c) (nor (b)) jurisdictional requirements for annulment were met and the annulment must be dismissed; a further stay was refused because it would be akin to annulment and contrary to the public interest in prompt resolution of insolvency matters.
20 Mar 2013

KAVIT KRISHNEEL KUMAR V THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION HC AK CIV-2012-404-4306

Citation

openlaw-8d767ed1_04ac_4047_bef6_974329cf2c9f.pdf
Court

High Court

Refusal to grant an adjournment was a lawful exercise of discretion because the appellant had sufficient opportunity and failed to act with reasonable diligence to obtain representation; the Tribunal's inquisitorial, informal procedures and active steps to assist ensured a fair hearing; representation is not an automatic right and, given the facts and risk of reoffending, the Tribunal rightly concluded deportation was not unjust or unduly harsh.
16 May 2012

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V JOHN MILL & ASSOCIATES LIMITED HC WANG CIV-2011-483-284

Citation

openlaw-c2b81cdb_819f_475e_9868_67093ebf156b.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court granted the liquidation order because the plaintiff established an unpaid debt evidenced by certificate and statutory demand, the defendant failed to provide any evidence of solvency or of collectability of the asserted receivable, and further adjournment was unjustified; accordingly the company was ordered wound up, liquidators appointed, and remuneration approved subject to statutory provision.