New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Admissibility of opinion evidence

  • 29 Jul 2022

    VANCE v VEY GROUP LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1861

    Citation
    [2022] NZHC 1861
    Court
    High Court

    The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the High Court correctly applied the law and facts: the liquidators reasonably concluded the Orana debt comprised a shareholder current account (and a $200,000 advance) repayable on demand and therefore not statute-barred; the court-appointed receiver/liquidator's evidence was admissible and appropriate; no arguable error of law or fact warranting leave was demonstrated; and granting leave would cause unjustified delay and prejudice to creditors and the liquidation process.

    • Liquidator decision review
    • Shareholder current account
    • Statute-barred debt
    • Leave to appeal
    • Admissibility of opinion evidence
    • Joachimson principle

  • 16 Oct 2019

    SYKES v SYKES [2019] NZHC 2636

    Citation
    [2019] NZHC 2636
    Court
    High Court

    Plaintiff raised a serious question to be tried on the trust claim but overall justice and balance of convenience require refusal of the interlocutory injunction because preventing defendant from dealing with the shares risks immediate liquidation and destruction of company value and prejudices third-party interests, damages would likely be adequate, and specific procedural and factual factors (delay, brothers' disavowal, plaintiff's contribution to parlous finances) weigh against interim relief.

    • Constructive trust
    • Express trust
    • Interlocutory injunction
    • Balance of convenience
    • Admissibility of opinion evidence
    • Costs

  • 21 Sept 2017

    MOHAMAD v POLICE [2017] NZHC 2290

    Citation
    [2017] NZHC 2290
    Court
    High Court

    Although the constable's description of the neck mark as 'fresh' amounted to inadmissible lay opinion about timing, the error was harmless because the admissible fact of a neck injury proximate to the incident supported the complainant's account and the judge did not rely on 'freshness'; trial counsel's decisions (not to summons R and to rely on the apparent willingness of R to attend) were reasonable and did not cause a miscarriage of justice; the written statement was lawfully obtained because rights were communicated and no request for counsel or interpreter was made; unauthenticated GPS/t…

    • Indecent assault
    • Trespass
    • Admissibility of opinion evidence
    • Right to counsel
    • Hearsay
    • Counsel conduct/strategic choices

  • 5 Jul 2013

    CRANE DISTRIBUTION (NZ) LIMITED (trading a Mico Plumbing) v DURRANT [2013] NZHC 1707

    Citation
    [2013] NZHC 1707
    Court
    High Court

    Defendant's affidavit evidence was conclusory and insufficient to establish the contract contained a purchase-order precondition; the written contract controlled and did not contain that term; plaintiff proved entitlement to a discrete subset of invoices totaling $8,954.70 and judgment was entered for that amount; the remaining amounts give rise to arguable defences and must be stayed and referred to arbitration under the arbitration clause.

    • Summary judgment
    • Contractual interpretation
    • Guarantee liability
    • Stay to arbitration
    • Set-off
    • Admissibility of opinion evidence

  • 28 Nov 2008

    THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V RABOBANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2006-485-2907

    Citation
    openlaw-aa7db318_c7fe_400c_8ed7_efbed579aaff.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The strike out application was dismissed because Rule 241 does not rigidly require that all evidence be filed with an originating application where the Court has discretion to admit further evidence; the failure to file the Maguire affidavit with the original application was not a fatal defect as a matter for strike out; the Commissioner had an arguable case that the originally filed evidence could suffice and that the May 2008 amendment could be a permissible amendment rather than a fresh, time-barred application.

    • Truncation application under s89n(3)
    • Limitation/finality of tax assessments (four year rule)
    • High court rules compliance (rule 241)
    • Amendment and timeliness of proceedings
    • Abuse of process
    • Admissibility of opinion evidence

  • 22 Dec 2006

    SIEMER V STIASSNY AND HODGSON CA CA55/06

    Citation
    openlaw-965e0e1a_b50f_4b58_8334_0e793ddd9682.pdf
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    Illingworth's evidence was excluded as inadmissible because general opinion about a judge's usual conduct does not bear on alleged bias in a specific hearing; therefore his summons was set aside. Although Miles and Flynn were present and could give relevant evidence, compelling them to attend would deprive respondents of their chosen counsel without providing legitimate forensic advantage, so summonses for them were declined. Other listed deponents who were not required for cross-examination need not be compelled. Mr Garrett will attend voluntarily so a summons is unnecessary. CA150/06 will b…

    • Witness summons
    • Abuse of process
    • Privilege waiver
    • Admissibility of opinion evidence
    • Court recording and webcasting