New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Capacity to pay

Legal area

Court

27 Jun 2022

THONGSKUL v R [2022] NZHC 1493

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1493
Court

High Court

Court was satisfied applicant's financial position had changed significantly because parole conditions led to sale of his businesses, there was no reliable evidence of significant concealed family assets or continuing income, enforcement of the original reparation was unlikely to be effective, and therefore cancellation of the outstanding $400,000 reparation was justified while leaving imprisonment undisturbed.
27 Nov 2014

HOWARD v CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL DOG CONTROL [2014] NZHC 2996

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2996
Court

High Court

Appellate court found new evidence of the appellant's very limited means (approximately $59 disposable income per fortnight) established that the original $8,000 reparation was unrealistic; therefore reparation reduced to $4,000 with payment period extended to 24 months and community work increased to 300 hours to maintain appropriate denunciation and deterrence; other orders, including the $2,000 fine, were left in place.
9 Dec 2010

BOYKO V BODY CORPORATE NO 205963 & ORS CA CA679/2010

Citation

openlaw-6cc36894_223d_409d_9dd8_1d2ee7001f6d.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Because the respondents' steps in the Court of Appeal after the appellant sought an extension of time were reasonable, the appellant's grounds for opposing costs failed (including inability to pay and prior allegations), and the claimed costs were correctly calculated under the Rules, the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of $5,689.06.

New Zealand Case Law

THONGSKUL v R [2022] NZHC 1493

HOWARD v CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL DOG CONTROL [2014] NZHC 2996

BOYKO V BODY CORPORATE NO 205963 & ORS CA CA679/2010