17 May 2023
The Court dismissed the strike-out and debarment/contempt applications because the plaintiff's breach of trust and knowing receipt claims were not clearly untenable and raised factual issues requiring trial, and the defendants' serious allegations against counsel were unsupported by evidence.
25 Aug 2022
The application for leave to appeal was declined because the Employment Court's refusal to disqualify counsel disclosed no arguable error of law, there was no cogent evidential foundation of a conflict of interest or incapacity of counsel to discharge duties, and the issues raised do not meet the high threshold of general or public importance required for leave.
16 Jun 2022
The stay was refused because Hum is plainly insolvent, a stay would not prevent liquidation or change that reality, any successful appeal could be pursued by a liquidator, and the interests of justice and balance of convenience do not favour preventing Stylo and other creditors from pursuing liquidation or enforcement steps.
8 Apr 2022
The without‑notice stay was refused because the urgent public and infrastructure interest in completing remediation and allowing ongoing access to the pipeline outweighed the Trust's asserted harm; repairs had been carried out and a stay would cause a deadlock over access and add nothing to the conditions already imposed by the judgment, particularly given First Gas' undertaking to comply with those conditions and the lack of time for First Gas to file responding evidence.
5 May 2021
The interlocutory application for interim relief was declined because the risk that further investigatory steps would render the appeal nugatory was insufficient and adequate safeguards could be imposed to address confidentiality risks; consequently the respondents successfully resisted the application and are entitled to costs of $5,975.
10 Mar 2021
The respondents knowingly and deliberately failed without reasonable excuse to comply with clear discovery and costs orders; that conduct warranted contempt sanctions. The Court therefore ordered specified supplementary discovery by sworn affidavit, a fine of $5,000 under the Contempt of Court Act 2019, payment of Spark's indemnity costs for steps taken since 4 September 2020, and interest on earlier costs orders calculated under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016, all to be complied with within ten working days.
26 Feb 2021
Because the respondent was found in contempt, took no steps to participate or oppose despite service, and the applicants were successful in their applications, the Court exercised its discretion to award costs on the 2B scale and ordered payment of $14,926.13 plus disbursements to the applicants.
16 Feb 2021
The consent orders do not make reconciliation of Oneheat's accounts a prerequisite to marketing and sale of the Karaka property; reconciliation and sale are addressed by distinct provisions and the independent trustees have discretion to progress marketing and sale forthwith, accordingly the court dismissed Mr Macnamara's application and directed trustees to proceed and Mr Macnamara to provide reasonable assistance.
26 Nov 2020
The appeal was dismissed because the record contained admissible evidence establishing the offence, there was no error in the District Court's factual findings or sentencing, and the jurisdictional challenge was unargued and without merit.
6 Aug 2020
Respondents' discovery compliance was deficient and caused unnecessary proceedings, but the applicant did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that respondents knowingly and without reasonable excuse disobeyed orders; therefore no contempt finding or fines were imposed; costs were awarded to the applicant with a 50% uplift from scale to reflect respondents' contribution to unnecessary time and expense; leave reserved to seek further contempt or indemnity costs if new evidence justifies it, and applicant ordered to file a short costs schedule to quantify the award.