30 Jun 2023
No identifiable successful party could be determined from the settlement; r15.23 (default presumption against a discontinuing plaintiff) does not automatically apply to settlements; absent an identifiable winner or clear unreasonable conduct justifying increased or indemnity costs, costs should lie where they fall; therefore both parties' costs applications are dismissed.
12 Dec 2019
Declined the transfer application because, on the evidence before the Court, the application appeared aimed at defeating the joint expert report process and avoiding the plaintiff's obligation to serve evidence; absent compelling new evidence or an expert report contradicting the JER, transfer is not in the interests of justice under s16(2)(c); plaintiff may reapply once his case is fully developed.
23 Oct 2014
Probate in solemn form was granted because the executors swore belief that the document was the deceased's last will and would faithfully execute it, all relevant persons had opportunity to challenge or comment, testamentary capacity and undue influence were no longer pursued, beneficiaries recorded agreement supporting the grant, and non‑party legatees were unaffected.
5 Sept 2014
The court granted summary judgment for $17,687.14 because the defendant had waived ADR rights, there remained a genuine dispute about the broader interpretation of clause 8.1 and surrounding background (precluding summary determination of the larger claim), but on the defendant's arguable temporal construction of the guarantee there was an undisputed debt of $17,687.14.
11 Jun 2013
The presumption that a discontinuing plaintiff must pay costs under r 15.23 was not displaced; in the absence of evidence of actual costs the court fixed a conservative award using the 2B scale as a benchmark and ordered the plaintiff to pay $2,500 inclusive of disbursements to the First Defendant; no order was made as between the plaintiff and the Second Defendant.
12 Sept 2011
Leave was granted for the shareholder to defend the company under s165 because the directors were deadlocked and the company would not diligently defend; advertising was stayed with leave to apply on seven days' notice and with reservation if creditors are unpaid; the application to disqualify Mr Bowers was dismissed because the allegations were contested and unsuitable for interlocutory resolution and his status as trustee was evidenced; the abuse of process application was dismissed because disputed factual matters could not properly be resolved on affidavit and any breach would give rise t…
22 Mar 2010
The Court found a fundamental disagreement under clause 22.2 and that substantial permanent injury was threatened, but held that the contractual ADR mechanism must be invoked before winding up; there was insufficient evidence of unfair or inequitable conduct to justify immediate winding up under s241(4), and because winding up is a last resort the application for liquidation was dismissed.
16 May 2008
Leave to appeal was refused because the issue was interlocutory, substantive rights had not been finally determined, the contractual interpretation issue was not sufficiently clear or appropriate for appellate determination at this stage, and any error identified did not produce the requisite detriment to warrant the delay of an appeal.
14 Dec 2007
Although the plaintiff is impecunious, on balance the court found the plaintiff's constructive trust claim was not entirely without merit, ordering security would likely deny access to the Court given the plaintiff's inability to pay and a pending legal aid application; accordingly the defendant's application for security for costs was dismissed.
12 Oct 2007
The applications by F&P failed because the arbitral tribunal's jurisdictional ruling was not a decision on the merits capable of founding issue estoppel, the Exhibit A procedure did not clearly extend to the precontractual misrepresentation and Fair Trading Act causes of action relied on by CMS, and New Zealand courts retain jurisdiction to determine those counterclaims if necessary.