New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Debarment from defending

Legal area

Court

19 Jul 2021

THE VINTAGE AVIATOR LIMITED v DEMARCO [2021] NZHC 2467

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2467
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal and a stay were refused because the Associate Judge lawfully exercised his discretion to debar the defendants from calling evidence or cross-examining after their repeated, material and unexplained non-compliance with clear unless discovery orders and the High Court Rules; the prejudice to the plaintiffs and the public interest in efficient case management outweighed the defendants' claims of resource constraints and natural justice.
21 Jun 2021

THE VINTAGE AVIATOR LIMITED v DEMARCO [2021] NZHC 1476

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1476
Court

High Court

The defendants failed to comply with the Court's unless order and High Court Rules on discovery by 7 May 2021; the late, unindexed delivery of SFO materials and inadequate affidavits caused serious prejudice and repeated non-compliance justified enforcement. The joinder application was abandoned and dismissed; the consolidation application was refused as untimely and likely to jeopardise the trial fixture. The Court declined to grant leave to defend; proceedings will proceed as formal proof with defendants permitted only to attend and make submissions.
27 Apr 2018

ZHANG v GUAN [2018] NZHC 841

Citation

[2018] NZHC 841
Court

High Court

Default judgment was proper because the first defendant was given notice, failed to comply with explicit court orders to file a statement of defence by the cut‑off date and was debared from defending; leave to discontinue against the consenting second, third and fourth defendants was appropriate because there were no claims by the first defendant against them and the first defendant remained in default.
28 May 2014

JIN v KONISHI [2014] NZHC 1150

Citation

(2014) 22 PRNZ 133
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Ellis J orders were ambiguous so the appeals were not deemed abandoned; even if an 'unless' order existed, time should be extended given minimal default and no prejudice; critically, the District Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to make personal costs awards against solicitors and the costs order against the second appellant must be quashed; first appellant's appeal dismissed for want of prosecution; party-party costs in District Court to be determined there.
22 Feb 2013

STIASSNY & ANOR V SIEMER HC AK CIV-2005-404-1808

Citation

openlaw-00cf5369_29a1_45d7_b3ff_65b1c1cd62d1.pdf
Court

High Court

Application dismissed: the substance of the challenge had been previously determined by higher courts; the new over-charging evidence should have been raised in the separate originating proceeding, does not establish the requisite conscious and deliberate dishonesty, and would not have altered the outcome; the application constitutes an abuse of process and recall/set-aside is refused.
24 Mar 2010

SIEMER V STIASSNY AND ANOR CA CA20/2010

Citation

openlaw-9da9a1b4_552f_49d7_89f7_49da3d4710f7.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for extension of time is dismissed because the delay of about two and a half years was unjustified, the applicant had been explicitly warned and failed to appeal the debarment order, substantial prejudice and costs accrued to respondents, and the proposed appeal had no realistic prospects of success given the Judge's jurisdiction and supporting factual findings.
13 Feb 2009

HADEN & ANOR V WELLS HC AK CIV-2008-404-5500

Citation

openlaw-929c3666_21e4_4274_8e94_cec78c8afc8b.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave was declined because the proposed evidence did not demonstrate special reasons: most documents predated the decision and could have been obtained with reasonable diligence, they lacked sufficient probative value and relevance to the issues on appeal (particularly the debarment and damages issues), and much was inadmissible hearsay without affidavits from third parties.
9 Jul 2007

FERRIER HODGSON AND ANOR V VINCENT ROSS SIEMER AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-1808

Citation

openlaw-cb7aa64f_f638_4c88_b015_d0ad189a4c62.pdf
Court

High Court

The first defendant was found in contempt beyond reasonable doubt because he intentionally and repeatedly breached the clear injunction, admitted doing so in emails, and continued to publish and disseminate offending material; consequently the Court granted plaintiffs leave to issue a writ of arrest, debarred the first defendant from defending the proceeding until further order, and ordered solicitor-and-client costs for the application to be paid by the first defendant.