New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay/laches

Legal area

Court

15 Aug 2011

FALOON and ORS v PUBLIC TRUST HC TAU CIV-2010-470-000052

Citation

openlaw-e3442c68_54eb_4044_b608_8475ae26d3af.pdf
Court

High Court

The strike out was upheld because the statement of claim failed to disclose any tenable cause of action: the 18 August 1975 letter did not create an enforceable special power; the pipeline lay on land owned by companies or third parties not the plaintiffs; any interest was unregistered, dormant and incapable of being enforced against Torrens title owners, and administration by the Public Trustee had been completed, so no basis existed to direct the Public Trustee to act.
3 Nov 2009

BUJAK V THE MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND ORS HC WN CIV-2009-485-1884

Citation

openlaw-af569112_6212_47af_9df2_c221c3a1fbb1.pdf
Court

High Court

The interim application was dismissed because the applicant's substantive case was at best weak: the 2001 approval was properly characterised as a conditional approval subject to reconsideration prior to formal completion, the Department's reliance on evidence of potential Polish charges and the outcome of extradition proceedings was not unreasonable, and the significant risk of prejudice to the extradition process together with the applicant's delay outweighed the modest prospects of success; however a limited stay was appropriate to preserve the applicant's opportunity to seek immediate app…
10 Sept 2007

ASHMONT HOLDINGS LIMITED AND ANOR V BAYER NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2007-404-003518

Citation

openlaw-864a5977_a820_43a5_a7b9_8dec6be9f23e.pdf
Court

High Court

The interim injunction was refused because, applying the Klissers/American Cyanamid framework, the Court found damages would adequately compensate Ancare if it prevailed at trial but would not adequately compensate Bayer and the third/fourth party distributors if an injunction were granted and they later prevailed; the appropriate status quo was the market position at commencement of proceedings; on balance the least risk of injustice lay against granting interim injunctive relief.
15 Aug 2005

JANSEN & ANOR V WHANGAMATA HOMES LTD CA CA266/04

Citation

openlaw-3feffbff_62c4_4520_8c92_2e93bbbd95db.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that Whangamata Homes' post-30 June 2003 conduct (demanding payment for extras, solicitor's letter requesting the transfer in anticipation of settlement, and subsequent correspondence acknowledging title and invoicing) constituted an unequivocal election to continue the contract, thereby precluding later cancellation under clause 22; accordingly the appellants were entitled to specific performance and leave to seek summary judgment.
6 Oct 2004

J G RUSSELL V THE DISTRICT COURT (MANUKAU) And Anor CA CA232/03

Citation

openlaw-b30a2b0f_8b71_4b8a_87c6_b801d3fc3419.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court refused to interfere: the District Court's factual and discretionary assessment that its discovery orders had been complied with was not shown to be wrong, the High Court properly declined to grant relief in exercise of discretion, and inordinate and unexplained delay reinforced the refusal; consequently judicial review was inappropriate and the appeal dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

FALOON and ORS v PUBLIC TRUST HC TAU CIV-2010-470-000052

BUJAK V THE MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND ORS HC WN CIV-2009-485-1884

ASHMONT HOLDINGS LIMITED AND ANOR V BAYER NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2007-404-003518

JANSEN & ANOR V WHANGAMATA HOMES LTD CA CA266/04

J G RUSSELL V THE DISTRICT COURT (MANUKAU) And Anor CA CA232/03