29 Apr 2019
Although there was inordinate and, on the evidence, inexcusable delay, the defendants failed to establish that the delay caused such serious prejudice that the proceeding could not be fairly tried (records and files could refresh memory); accordingly the strike out application under r 15.2 was dismissed.
6 May 2011
Applying a merged approach to s 40 the Court held that the acquired land remained required for a public work (a limited access major arterial/motorway or functional equivalent) as at December 1985; s 40(1) was not satisfied and no offer‑back obligation arose, so the appeal is dismissed.
19 Oct 2007
Leave to appeal was granted because the proposed grounds met the statutory criteria and were framed narrowly to permit the Supreme Court to determine whether the delay qualified as 'exceptional circumstances' under s 114 and whether the Employment Court had jurisdiction to review the laying and prosecution of misconduct charges and the Tribunal's conduct and report.
31 Aug 2007
The appeal is dismissed. The judge's finding that the police had misused qualified privilege under s19 was open on the evidence: the constable's conduct (publishing a photograph dated after the incident and inconsistent with the description, and failing to consider the risk the person was wrongfully identified) was so grossly negligent as to amount to reckless indifference to the truth; the judge properly applied s29 factors to reduce but not eliminate damages. The respondent's award of $35,000 and costs at scale 2B are affirmed.