25 Aug 2022
The District Court had jurisdiction because the claim was for a debt within its monetary limit ($999); an affirmative defence alleging breaches of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act and Rules does not oust jurisdiction where the substantive claim is within jurisdiction; no procedural unfairness or error of law was established on appeal; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and costs awarded to respondents.
26 Jun 2019
The Judge did not err in refusing an adjournment because estoppel by representation is an affirmative defence requiring pleading under the District Court Rules, counsel had been warned in the earlier summary judgment decision and it was for counsel to ensure pleas were in order; the refusal fell within the Judge's discretionary case management powers and was not plainly wrong, so the High Court will not interfere.
29 Aug 2013
Court refused to postpone fixing costs pending the appeal, treated the ruling as effectively determinative of the affirmative defence for costs purposes, limited recoverable costs to those directly incurred to argue the affirmative defence (allowing Schedule 3 analogues items 30,31,33,34 for three days at Category 2 rate plus the undisputed setting down fee), and ordered the defendant to pay $9,111.80.
19 Nov 2007
Amendment to plead maintenance and champerty was declined because allowing it at that late stage would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff by ambushing witnesses; independently, the proposed defence had no real prospect of success because an absolute assignment given and notified under s130 Property Law Act is effectual and not impeachable on maintenance/champerty grounds in the circumstances of this case.