New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Application for review

Legal area

Court

19 Sept 2018

BIGGS v BIGGS [2018] NZCA 378

Citation

[2018] NZCA 378
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court declined the review and upheld the Registrar's decision that security for costs be maintained at $6,600 because the appellant had not shown inability to access funds and the only exceptional circumstance was the existence of assets sufficient to satisfy any adverse costs order; the appellant's cessation of proceedings against other respondents was immaterial and the first respondent was entitled to the normal protection of security for costs.
20 Mar 2018

SZEKELY v NORTH [2018] NZCA 58

Citation

[2018] NZCA 58
Court

Court of Appeal

Refund was declined because the applicant failed to demonstrate immediate financial hardship; prospective financial pressures from an expected child do not suffice when bank statements show current income and balances adequate to pay the scheduling fee.
13 Aug 2015

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER AND JANE DINSDALE SIEMER v KEVIN STANLEY BROWN & ORS [2015] NZSC 126

Citation

[2015] NZSC 126
Court

Supreme Court

The recall application was dismissed because it raised no new or relevant matter and was an abuse of process; Wild J correctly applied binding authority that there is no right to a three‑Judge review of the registrar's decision.
12 Mar 2014

HAYES v FAMILY COURT CA604/2012 [2014] NZCA 66

Citation

[2014] NZCA 66
Court

Court of Appeal

The Registrar correctly exercised discretion: the appellant's covenant did not obviate the potential adverse effect on the second respondent or remove the need for the normal protection of security for costs; security was appropriately reduced to $5,880 but not dispensed with.
29 Jun 2010

MURRAY V MURRAY HC HAM CIV-2010-419-202

Citation

openlaw-7a970a70_e0ee_4e4b_ab6d_c691ec124eaa.pdf
Court

High Court

Debarring order made by the Family Court pursuant to an unopposed unless direction was valid and unappealed and cannot be collaterally attacked on this appeal; the High Court was entitled to rely on the s38 report despite its stated limitations and to make interim orders including declaration that the 999 Seapro shares were respondent's separate property and an interim payment order; failure to give further formal notice to trustees did not invalidate the orders on the evidence before the Court.
25 Mar 2009

DORBU V DISTRICT COURT AUCKLAND (TENANCY TRIBUNAL DIVISION) AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-7398

Citation

openlaw-d59a6c61_abaa_438d_b327_4c9efb56a551.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the interim application for want of jurisdiction because s8 of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 does not authorize mandatory orders (such as an order to vacate) or the granting of judgments in debt; the tenants had already vacated and the outstanding rent claim must be pursued in another forum, not by interim review under s8.
31 Jul 2003

Steedman v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 167
Court

District Court

Section 136 requires strict compliance including use of the insurer's form and statement of grounds; the appellant's 5 July 2001 letter did not satisfy these mandatory requirements and the completed application filed on 19 October 2001 was outside the three month period, so the appellant lost review rights.
16 Nov 1999

McCarthy v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 328
Court

District Court

The Court, acting on the parties' consent, determined that the doctor's letter dated 20 October 1998 constituted a written application under s89(5) and that the appellant caused or contributed to the delay under s90(9); accordingly the timing issue was resolved by consent and costs were ordered to lie where they fall.
15 Nov 1999

Coulter v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 325
Court

District Court

The District Court held that the 9 March 1999 letter did not operate as a new decision; however the form signed on behalf of the appellant on 30 January 1999 amounted to a written indication of non-acceptance and should be treated as an application for review, therefore the review was not out of time and the file must be referred back for a review hearing.