New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Commercial list jurisdiction

  • 18 Feb 2014

    LOCKWOOD GROUP LIMITED v SMALL [2014] NZHC 178

    Citation
    [2014] NZHC 178
    Court
    High Court

    Although extension of time could be justified given counsel's misunderstanding and prompt steps taken, leave to appeal under s 24G is refused because the proposed appeal lacks substance: the strike out of imprecise defamation paragraphs was justified for failure to plead words and provide particulars, the $1,000,000 lost sales claim lacked adequate causation and particulars, and removal from the commercial list was a proper exercise of discretion; accordingly no leave to appeal is granted and extension of time is not required.

    • Extension of time
    • Leave to appeal
    • Commercial list jurisdiction
    • Strike out
    • Particulars
    • Removal from commercial list

  • 22 Jan 2013

    NZ MILK BRANDS LTD & ANOR V ANCHOR FOODS PTY LTD HC AK CIV-2012-404-003824

    Citation
    openlaw-48ac3cb9_5282_400a_910a_a88c24c60e1c.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    No order for costs was made in favour of either party in relation to the defendant's interlocutory applications because the plaintiffs had a reasonable basis to commence proceedings (trade mark applications prima facie evidencing intent to use), the plaintiffs gave reasonable notice, the stay was agreed on the basis of the defendant's later undertaking, and the defendant's grounds for costs were not demonstrated; substantive costs are reserved pending the outcome before the Commissioner of Trade Marks.

    • Trade mark infringement
    • Stay of proceedings
    • Striking out
    • Interlocutory costs
    • Commercial list jurisdiction

  • 15 Mar 2011

    GODFREY WATERHOUSE V CONTRACTORS BONDING LIMITED HC AK CIV 2010-404-3074

    Citation
    openlaw-a757168a_08eb_4adc_9919_6875c4ded070.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    Grant leave to appeal on the funding issue because the scope and application of Saunders v Houghton para 79 (requirements for third party funding) is a matter of general public importance warranting appellate consideration; refuse leave to appeal against retention in the Commercial List because the defendant has not shown real detriment or injustice sufficient to justify leave; refuse stay because plaintiffs offered $50,000 security and there was no risk of wasted costs that would justify a stay; direct plaintiffs to provide security and fixed timetabling and costs directions.

    • Third party litigation funding
    • Maintenance and champerty
    • Commercial list jurisdiction
    • Security for costs
    • Stay of proceedings
    • Leave to appeal