New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Case management directions

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 2022

McATAMNEY v ALLEN [2022] NZHC 3147

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3147
Court

High Court

The Court will not make orders for substituted or alternative service absent a demonstrated reason to depart from the normal rules of personal service; accordingly the plaintiff must serve proceedings by personal service unless parties or their solicitors agree to accept service, with interim parental representation for minors and further consideration of representation for infant or unborn grandchildren at case management.
19 Feb 2021

DELIU v THE AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT [2021] NZHC 213

Citation

[2021] NZHC 213
Court

High Court

Recusal was refused because the challenged directions were routine case management steps made in the context of telephone mentions and voluminous filings, the applicant's grievances amounted to alleged legal errors not indications of bias, joinder of the Attorney‑General was appropriate, and a fair‑minded informed observer would not have a reasonable apprehension that the Judge would not decide matters on the merits.
11 Feb 2021

ROSS v SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED [2021] NZHC 142

Citation

[2021] NZHC 142
Court

High Court

LPF's application for leave to intervene was dismissed because LPF did not demonstrate a sufficient, direct interest (no funding arrangement with affected claimants) and intervention was unnecessary and would not assist the Court; the requested case management conference was also refused and the non‑party request for access to court documents was refused.
30 Sept 2016

ZENG v CAI [2016] NZHC 2336

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2336
Court

High Court

The Judge correctly required the appellant to file an affidavit of assets and liabilities because r398 mandates such filing in PRA proceedings and those affidavits may be relevant to the factors the Family Court must consider under s38A when deciding whether to transfer proceedings to the High Court; an application for a stay does not excuse compliance with filing obligations absent an order, so the Judge was entitled to require the affidavits before allocating a hearing date for the stay/transfer application; the appeal is dismissed.
26 Sept 2014

BANKS v GREY DISTRICT COUNCIL CA460/2013 [2014] NZCA 470

Citation

[2014] NZCA 470
Court

Court of Appeal

Stevens J's directions were appropriate and not unfairly prejudicial given the appellants' non‑compliant cases on appeal; one day was sufficient for the consolidated oral hearing; appellants are granted leave to file a supplementary volume of contested material but admissibility and relevance are to be decided by the substantive hearing panel; costs reserved.
12 Feb 2014

RUJING JIN v NORTH SHORE DISTRICT COURT [2014] NZSC 1

Citation

[2014] NZSC 1
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the challenged matters were interlocutory case management decisions that did not raise issues of general or public importance and there was no evidence of a substantial miscarriage of justice; the award of indemnity costs was sustainable on the factual background of the applicant's non-compliance with directions.
20 Aug 2013

STOKES v INSIGHT LEGAL TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED [2013] NZHC 2113

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2113
Court

High Court

The Associate Judge's directions for a complete rehearing were set aside insofar as they permitted relitigation of the capacity issue because the Court of Appeal had upheld the finding that Mrs Heenan signed the agreement in her capacity as trustee and had remitted only the specified issues (co-trustee consent and entitlement to indemnity/equitable lien); the resumed hearing must be confined to those remitted issues and further directions are to be given following a joint memorandum from counsel.
3 Feb 2012

MARINA VIEW CONFERENCE MANAGEMENT CENTRE LTD V JB VENTURES LIMITED HC GIS CIV 2012-416-12

Citation

openlaw-d5e2eaa6_62a3_499a_a891_74fd1d9a7337.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court exercised its discretion to grant a stay of enforcement pending appeal only on the condition that the full judgment sum ($62,473.16) be paid into the appellants' solicitor's trust account by a specified date; this conditional stay balanced protection of the respondent's monetary interest and the appellants' opportunity to prosecute the appeal.
4 Nov 2011

DELIU V THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY HC AK CIV-2010-404-6182

Citation

openlaw-40310760_2fbe_47de_9e54_8ca6804c8792.pdf
Court

High Court

The court ordered separate trials because the applications for review were reasonably confined and capable of prompt resolution, their separate determination would clarify and potentially expedite the complex civil causes and ongoing investigations, and the balance of prejudice favored separation; the review causes are to be tried first.
30 Aug 2011

ORLOV V NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY (AUCKLAND BRANCH) HC AK CIV 2010-404-2868

Citation

openlaw-8bc841d4_9aaa_45fa_a61a_bc0d094bc65a.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court refused to order a stay, dismissed the application for a judicial settlement conference, set a fixed timetable and detailed interlocutory directions for amendment of pleadings, discovery (including contested privilege issues), filing deadlines, transmission of the Tribunal record and an issues conference to ready the judicial review for an eight‑day hearing beginning 27 February 2012; applications for non‑party discovery and costs applications were to be filed to specified deadlines and costs were reserved.