New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conspiracy to injure

Legal area

Court

14 Dec 2023

R v HEMOPO [2023] NZHC 1613

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1613
Court

High Court

Because the defendant's role was limited to driving the principal offender to the confrontation, and there was no reliable evidence he knew a knife would be used, the appropriate starting point for the conspiracy to injure was two years' imprisonment (Nuku band two); an uplift of three months for driving while disqualified was imposed concurrently, a 10% discount for adverse background was allowed, previous distant convictions did not warrant uplift, resulting in a total sentence of two years' imprisonment and an 18-month driving disqualification.
19 Oct 2023

R v NGAPERA [2023] NZHC 2931

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2931
Court

High Court

Court set starting point for conspiracy to injure at 2 years 9 months, uplifted by 12 months for attempting to pervert the course of justice to 3 years 9 months, then uplifted 3 months for relevant prior convictions to a 4 year starting point; applied a 20% total reduction (12.5% for guilty plea and 7.5% for personal circumstances/time on EM bail) to reach an effective concurrent sentence of 3 years 2 months imprisonment for each defendant.
19 Dec 2018

MONNERY v PARSONS [2018] NZHC 3414

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3414
Court

High Court

Threshold under r 5.45 was met because plaintiffs were impecunious; balancing access to justice and defendants' costs protection, the Court found plaintiffs' claims had significant difficulties but were not hopeless, no evidence of third party funding, and the case could be managed to a 5–10 day trial; therefore a modest staged security order was just: $25,000 on setting down for trial and $25,000 three months before trial (total $50,000) with stay if unpaid.
30 Nov 2015

BURCHELL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZCA 581

Citation

[2015] NZCA 581
Court

Court of Appeal

The applications for extensions of time were dismissed because the proposed appeals had no realistic prospect of success: the High Court correctly struck out the amended statement of claim under r 15.1(1) for multiple established reasons and correctly refused a stay; accordingly extension of time was not warranted.
5 Jun 2013

WAGNER v GILL [2013] NZHC 1304

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1304
Court

High Court

Plaintiff's conspiracy claims dismissed: although combinations/transactions between Gill and his companies occurred and some conduct (transfer of NBNZ contract) breached fiduciary duties, the evidence did not establish that conspirators acted with dominant purpose to injure the plaintiff or that qualifying unlawful means existed as instrument of the loss; moreover, even if some breaches existed, the companies were effectively insolvent and the plaintiff would not have recovered the arbitral award in any event, so causation of the pleaded loss was not established.
3 Oct 2011

WAGNER V GILL & ORS HC AK CIV-2011-404-3509

Citation

openlaw-ef2bcb83_259a_468d_965d_4d98e6a984f5.pdf
Court

High Court

Costs in respect of the interlocutory freezing order proceedings must be fixed at determination; the defendants were entitled to a contribution to costs assessed on a category 2C basis under Schedule 3 because the nature and number of interlocutory applications justified the higher band, but an award of increased costs under r 14.6 was not justified; accordingly the plaintiff was directed to pay a contribution to the defendants' costs on a 2C basis plus disbursements.
3 Oct 2011

LIAN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT (NZ) LTD V GAO HC AK CIV-2011-404-006064

Citation

openlaw-e4e3b6c5_8b40_4776_8827_d115baa8c06f.pdf
Court

High Court

Having found a good arguable case based on the plaintiffs' evidence of alleged misrepresentations and suspicious transactions, and credible evidence the defendants intend to leave New Zealand imminently, the Court concluded there is a real and imminent risk that funds in New Zealand bank accounts will be removed or dissipated; accordingly freezing orders and examination of assets were justified and granted.
12 Oct 2009

LOKTRONIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED V STEPHEN JOHN DIVER AND ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-4657

Citation

openlaw-e0788c8d_9082_4766_a0b3_92213a364fc9.pdf
Court

High Court

Security for costs ordered in the total sum of NZD 85,000 (NZD 17,000 per defendant applicant). The plaintiff conceded impecuniosity; contract claims are arguable while tort claims are finely balanced. On balance defendants should not be left totally exposed; the sum ordered protects defendants reasonably without denying plaintiff access to court. Security may be by payment to the Registrar or personal guarantees by the director and Loktronic Innovationz Ltd with specified undertakings; security to be provided within seven working days.