New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Document authenticity

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2017

HA v REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2017] NZHC 1787

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1787
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal and leave to bring judicial review were refused because the applicant failed to establish a seriously arguable error of law: the Tribunal's adverse credibility and plausibility findings were supported by an evidential foundation including inconsistencies, implausibilities and materially similar documents linked to a co-claimant; the fresh evidence was unverified and not sufficiently cogent; and the issues were case-specific and not of general or public importance.
14 Oct 2011

WEBB V EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF LOLA ETHEL WEBB HC TAU CIV-2010-470-000264

Citation

openlaw-13a92d9b_c825_4d73_9c0c_361d4b747a7f.pdf
Court

High Court

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed: the testamentary promises claim failed for lack of established services/forbearance linked to a promise by Lola and absence of evidence that Lola knew of or relied on any forbearance; the mutual wills claim failed because there was no clear and satisfactory evidence of an agreement by Lola not to revoke her will or of irrevocability (no recital, deed or Public Trust contemporaneous advice), so no constructive trust arose.
15 Feb 2007

PAPER RECLAIM LTD V AOTEAROA INTERNATIONAL LTD SC 25/2006

Citation

PAPER RECLAIM LTD V AOTEAROA INTERNATIONAL LTD SC 25/2006
Court

Supreme Court

Applications to amend the ground of appeal and to adduce the 1997 document as fresh evidence are dismissed because allowing them would place the appellate court outside appropriate bounds, Paper Reclaim failed the due diligence requirement for newly discovered evidence, the document's authenticity and effect could not be resolved without a full rehearing, and permitting the change would unfairly prejudice the respondent and undermine finality of litigation.
18 May 2006

MADAN V MADAN HC AK CIV-2005-404-6965

Citation

openlaw-48f7c9dd_71d3_42cb_a5a6_8ab551277766.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to adduce the additional documents was refused because the appellant failed to establish the documents' authenticity and cogency, failed to show they could not reasonably have been discovered before the District Court hearing, and in any event they would not have materially affected the trial judge's credibility-based findings; consequently the application was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.

New Zealand Case Law

HA v REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2017] NZHC 1787

WEBB V EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF LOLA ETHEL WEBB HC TAU CIV-2010-470-000264

PAPER RECLAIM LTD V AOTEAROA INTERNATIONAL LTD SC 25/2006

MADAN V MADAN HC AK CIV-2005-404-6965