7 Sept 2023
Because perjury is a Crimes Act offence engaging rights to full criminal process and the judge in this case was the judge effectively deceived by the perjury, fairness and the requirements of criminal process warranted that the appeal and sentencing be reassigned; accordingly the judge should not proceed to sentence and the matter must be set down before another judge.
2 May 2023
The applications for leave to appeal and for recall are dismissed because the applicants failed to satisfy the established criteria: the proffered evidence was not demonstrated to be fresh and cogent, the application amounted to re-litigation of merits, no question of public importance or miscarriage of justice was shown, and applicable principles and jurisdictional limits preclude relief.
22 Dec 2022
No contempt order was made because, although defendants failed to comply with the Bottle Order, the Court had a reasonable doubt whether the defendants knowingly breached the order (insufficient proof they understood or intentionally ignored date‑stamp identification). The defendants are nevertheless ordered to pay plaintiff's costs on a 2B scale with a 75% uplift for unreasonable and dilatory conduct.
19 Jan 2022
Because Mr Kerr serially failed to comply with multiple court orders and thereby caused the receivers unnecessary expense, indemnity costs were justified; the claimed rates and allocation of work were reasonable in the circumstances, the disbursements were appropriate, GST was included because the company was not GST registered, and the receivers were entitled to $102,459.91 (including GST) plus disbursements $929.99 and $487 for the costs memorandum, totalling $103,389.90.
17 Aug 2021
Applicants Joginder Singh and Sukhdev Hundal lacked standing under s165 because the Society is not a company and they are not shareholders or directors of the subsidiaries; however a current member of the Society, Satnam Singh, has standing at common law to bring a derivative action in the name of the subsidiaries where the alleged wrongdoer controls the companies; procedural defects did not amount to abuse of process; leave granted only for common law derivative claim limited to alleged breaches of directors' duties under the Companies Act and/or fiduciary duties against Mr Dua, subject to c…
3 Sept 2019
The defendant (Walker) was liable for breach of confidence and invasion of privacy for specific distributions of the plaintiff's private electronic material after he was on notice of its confidential character (knowledge established by May–June 2011); the Tape Drive given to IRD on 12 April 2011 did not give rise to breach because defendant lacked knowledge the backup contained private material then; public interest and statutory powers justified some limited disclosures to authorities but did not justify disclosures to private third parties or certain transfers to the Official Assignee befor…
3 Sept 2019
All causes of action dismissed: defendant did not owe an enforceable duty of confidence to plaintiff in respect of documents belonging to a third party; disclosed material was not shown to be of the necessary quantity or character to establish invasion of privacy or to be highly offensive; liquidator is not a public officer for misfeasance in public office; no actionable breach of statutory duty shown; contempt claim failed on pleaded basis and remedy not made.
17 Jul 2019
The court exercised its discretion under s 76(2) Insolvency Act 2006 to allow the proceeding to continue against the bankrupt and held that continuation necessarily includes an order that the bankrupt must comply with existing court orders (discovery and oral examination). Bankruptcy does not absolve the bankrupt of compliance where the court permits continuation; if the Official Assignee can discharge obligations the Assignee should do so, otherwise the bankrupt must comply personally. Further argument on the abstract legal effect of bankruptcy was unnecessary to resolve the application and…
10 Jun 2019
The applicants failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents were in civil contempt; the undertaking was sufficiently clear, permitted up to two prunings per year and the respondents remedied regrowth by 24 November 2018, so the contempt application was premature and must be dismissed.
1 Mar 2019
Costs are to lie where they fall because the contempts were minor, caused no loss, the applicant's motive was largely punitive, and the Court exercised its discretion under the High Court Rules to refuse a costs award.