New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cross-examination of deponents

Legal area

Court

24 Jan 2022

VALENT v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2022] NZHC 31

Citation

[2022] NZHC 31
Court

High Court

The applicant's requests to call additional Corrections witnesses and to cross‑examine the Corrections deponent were declined because the respondent's affidavit satisfied the duty of candour and provided sufficient explanation for the decision; further testimony and cross‑examination were unnecessary for judicial review which addresses legality, fairness and reasonableness rather than merits, and the hearing will proceed remotely by AVL given COVID protocols and applicant consent.
15 Dec 2021

STRATFORD v MOSES (2nd Ruling) [2021] NZHC 3473

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3473
Court

High Court

The Court ordered Lynn be joined personally under r 4.56 because personal relief was sought against her; awarded costs to Lynn on the strike-out application (2B scale less 25%); required an undertaking in damages within five working days for interlocutory preservation orders; scheduled the interlocutory hearing for 8 February 2022 subject to agreement on interim payment of Mr Vance's fees (effectively an interim Beddoe arrangement); and issued a detailed timetable for filing evidence and submissions, while deferring determination of admissibility and cross-examination applications until forma…
1 Dec 2021

ENVIRO WASTE SERVICES LTD v REMEDIATION (NZ) LTD [2021] NZHC 3270

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3270
Court

High Court

ESL, as the registered lessee under a valid lease from the Tauranga City Council effective 1 March 2021, had a better right to possession than Revital, which remained on site only with ESL's consent and at best held a tenancy at will or revocable licence; no lease existed between ESL and Revital so s251 did not apply to their relationship, but ESL validly determined the occupation and gave required notice (including 20 working days where appropriate); the originating application procedure was appropriate given the narrow issues; consolidation and stay were refused; notices for cross-examinati…
11 Aug 2016

KAUR v THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2016] NZHC 1862

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1862
Court

High Court

Award costs 2B to respondents for the first interlocutory application (effectively withdrawn/subsumed) and award costs 2B to applicant for the second interlocutory application because the applicant obtained the substantive concession rendering cross-examination necessary on a limited ground; no uplift or indemnity costs awarded and no costs on costs, because respondent conduct and timetable confusion mitigated any discretionary increase.
3 Jun 2016

SMITH v SMITH [2016] NZHC 1197

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1197
Court

High Court

On an interlocutory application to transfer under r 186 the Judge properly exercised his discretion: cross-examination is not an automatic right in interlocutory matters, the Judge may limit procedure under r 224 to achieve proportionality, and on the facts the respondent's medical evidence satisfied the fairness limb so transfer to New Plymouth was justified; no legal error was made in refusing cross-examination or in applying r 186.
4 Oct 2013

DELIU v THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2013] NZHC 2597

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2597
Court

High Court

Leave to issue subpoenas compelling the convenors of ASC1 and NSC to give oral evidence was denied because oral evidence was not necessary to fairly determine the judicial review: there is an extensive contemporaneous documentary record and the matters largely turn on legal issues; allegations of bad faith were general and did not provide an evidential basis requiring compelled oral testimony; compelling decision‑makers is exceptional and the appropriate remedy is usually an adverse inference where warranted.
24 Jun 2009

GEARY V THE PSYCHOLOGISTS BOARD AND ANOR SC 36/2009

Citation

SC 36/2009
Court

Supreme Court

The Court refused leave to appeal because the established rule that leave is required for cross-examination in judicial review proceedings is sound and the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds (including a plausible basis for bias) to depart from that rule; accordingly the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

VALENT v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2022] NZHC 31

STRATFORD v MOSES (2nd Ruling) [2021] NZHC 3473

ENVIRO WASTE SERVICES LTD v REMEDIATION (NZ) LTD [2021] NZHC 3270

KAUR v THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2016] NZHC 1862

SMITH v SMITH [2016] NZHC 1197

DELIU v THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2013] NZHC 2597

GEARY V THE PSYCHOLOGISTS BOARD AND ANOR SC 36/2009