15 Nov 2023
The minutes of 30 October 2023 and 1 November 2023 are not appealable because they did not determine any issue; no transcript of the 30 October 2023 call‑over exists because no evidence was given; and judicial review civil proceedings cannot be converted into criminal proceedings by minute — therefore the applicant has no right of appeal and no transcript can be provided.
31 Jul 2020
The High Court accepted the District Court transcript recording a guilty plea to the second s71 breach as establishing a valid conviction; accordingly the defendant was convicted and discharged on that offence and the Court could proceed despite the defendant's refusal to enter the courtroom because counsel had been present and had advised the defendant.
6 Aug 2019
Because the appellant failed to file submissions as directed, did not attend the hearing, and had been given notice that non-compliance would result in dismissal, the appeal was properly struck out under s 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
1 Jul 2013
The court rejected recovery for claimed holiday leave and a lunch expense, corrected a travel cost error, allowed a modest stationery/incidental claim despite lack of particularisation, and awarded the respondent $402.47 for out-of-pocket expenses, payable on delivery of the judgment.
10 May 2007
No miscarriage of justice was established because all relevant material was before the Court despite misfiling, the contested affidavits were irrelevant or non‑compliant with r 510, the fixture directions and notice were adequate, the email exhibit did not alter materially the determinative issues or witness credibility, and a one‑day hearing fairly allowed both matters to be heard; accordingly the application for rehearing is declined and costs awarded.
18 Oct 2006
Harbour PHO was granted limited leave to intervene because it showed it was arguable its contractual rights and obligations would be directly affected by the Boards' decision, the plaintiff could not adequately represent Harbour PHO's distinct public‑interest concerns, intervention would assist the Court on consultation and transition risk issues, and no unjust prejudice or fatal delay would result; other intended interveners lacked specific evidence of direct effect and were denied.