New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay

Legal area

Court

14 Aug 2023

CRIDGE v STUDORP LIMITED [2023] NZCA 365

Citation

[2023] NZCA 365
Court

Court of Appeal

The application to adduce further evidence was declined because the proposed evidence was not fresh (appellants had deliberately not called it after obtaining the Allunga Tully documents), the application was unreasonably delayed until late in the appeal hearing, the proposed expert evidence lacked sufficient specificity and cogency, there had been no earlier breach of discovery obligations, and the judge did not err in refusing to recall the respondent's witness.
9 Aug 2023

VAN DELDEN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2110

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2110
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the High Court, on rehearing, found no error in the trial judge's credibility and identification findings; the nondisclosure of a handwritten statement and notebook entries did not create a real risk of an unfair trial or affect the outcome; and delay did not produce appreciable prejudice amounting to a miscarriage of justice, therefore the conviction is upheld.
31 Jul 2023

HUATA v MANGAROA 26N2 TRUST [2023] NZCA 338

Citation

[2023] NZCA 338
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for a stay was declined because the proposed tikanga claim was new, unpleaded and vague, the appellants caused or failed to cure significant delay including through counsel changes, and it would be unjust and prejudicial to the respondent to further delay the appeal; counsel errors did not justify staying the appeal.
15 Jun 2023

BARTON (DECEASED) v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND ORS [2023] NZCA 237

Citation

[2023] NZCA 237
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court struck out the appeal under r 44A(1) because the deceased appellant's personal representatives failed to advise the Court whether they intended to continue the appeal, thereby failing to prosecute the appeal with due diligence and dispatch; given the prolonged delays and the nature of the proceedings, striking out was in the interests of justice.
22 Mar 2023

UTATAO v R [2023] NZCA 70

Citation

[2023] NZCA 70
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to withdraw the notice of abandonment was refused because the abandonment was a deliberate and informed decision after thorough legal advice, no exceptional interests of justice were shown to justify setting it aside, and the unexplained three year delay undermined the application.
23 Dec 2022

LYNNE FRANCES SNOWDON v RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2022] NZSC 158

Citation

[2022] NZSC 158
Court

Supreme Court

Recall was dismissed because the applicant provided no adequate explanation for the eight year delay, the newly alleged documents do not justify recall nor explain their prior unavailability, and there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant recall or direct leave given the proposed appeal raises factual issues rather than questions of law.
2 Sept 2022

SINGH v AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2022] NZHC 2229

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2229
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was struck out because the HRRT decision dated 8 February 2018 was subject to statutory appeal time under s 123 of the Human Rights Act and the Court had no jurisdiction to extend that time; the judicial review proceeding was struck out as an impermissible attempt to circumvent appeal rights, not reasonably arguable, and prejudicially delayed; the general proceedings were an abuse of process because they sought to relitigate matters already determined by HRRT and ERA and were similarly struck out; name suppression was declined and costs were left to lie with limited timetable…
3 Aug 2022

K v K [2022] NZHC 1895

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1895
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was declined because the proposed appeal lacks merit, raises no important question of law, rests on factual contentions rejected by the Family Court and High Court, and is barred by undue and unexplained delay combined with the principle of finality of settlements; therefore further appeal is not justified.
12 Nov 2021

WELLS v POLICE [2021] NZHC 3030

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3030
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because there was no miscarriage of justice: defence representation was not shown to be inadequate on the evidence available, the prosecution witnesses were found credible, refusal to adjourn was justified by extensive delay and the simplicity of the charge, and no material bias or sentencing error was demonstrated.
5 May 2021

S (CA199/2020) v THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU [2021] NZCA 163

Citation

[2021] NZCA 163
Court

Court of Appeal

Because the appellant failed to obtain the primary relief (stay/prohibition) the High Court correctly declined to grant a remedy and the finding that the discharge was unlawful did not equate to a Hansen indication or otherwise entitle the appellant to costs; judicial review was an inappropriate route to secure the requested stay and the High Court did not err in ordering costs to lie where they fell.