14 Sept 2023
Extension of time granted but leave to appeal dismissed because the applicants sought to advance a novel argument that was not raised or argued in the High Court or Court of Appeal, the case was litigated on concessions inconsistent with the new argument, and no miscarriage of justice arises to justify granting leave.
3 Oct 2022
The reparation orders were quashed because both victims had already been paid by insurers and there was no evidence of the victims' consent required by s 38 to direct payment to insurers; insurers had exercised their rights (including subrogation) and entered into private settlements with the appellant, making overlaying court reparation orders unnecessary and risking double recovery.
18 Mar 2022
The Court held that the CPRA settlement and resulting assets forfeiture did not operate to discharge or be attributed as payment of tax assessments; the settlement did not bind the Commissioner of Inland Revenue because IRD was not a party and the settlement expressly stated it had no bearing on IRD, forfeited assets vested absolutely in the Crown and were not held on trust for plaintiffs or IRD, and the plaintiffs' declarations were refused while declarations requested by CIR confirming the forfeiture and restraining orders were not intended to meet tax debts and did not prohibit IRD collect…
5 Jul 2021
Tailored discovery was refused because the settlement documents between WGP and NZTA relate to delivery‑phase compensation for consenting and COVID‑19 delays and are therefore not relevant to the plaintiffs' pleaded claim against the defendants, which is a pre‑contract/tender phase claim whose loss was fixed prior to construction; consequently the documents are not required to assess double recovery or damages against the defendants.
25 Oct 2018
The Release Agreement, objectively construed in light of expert reports and negotiations, was calculated on the basis that the Gym and Large Warehouse were a total loss from the February 2011 earthquake and paid on a full replacement basis; that Settlement therefore precluded a later claim for the June 2011 earthquake as it would constitute double recovery, and the broker had authority to conclude the settlement, so the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
14 Jul 2014
The court ordered particular discovery under r 8.19 because the settlement documents were sufficiently relevant to a live issue (possible double recovery and inconsistency with earlier pleadings affecting the policy exclusion defence) and there was no practical alternative means for the applicant to obtain the information; confidentiality concerns and the late filing did not outweigh the need for disclosure, subject to strict confidentiality safeguards.
25 Jun 2014
The defendants succeeded on the substantive issues and are entitled to an order under s 45(5) specifying the costs that would have been awarded but for the Legal Services Act; quantum is to be fixed on the schedule filed subject to confirmation that no items overlap with the $17,000 earlier payment; certain items merit 2C banding and no deduction is warranted for minimal periods when second counsel was absent.
2 Aug 2013
The Assignee did not err in admitting the Environment Court costs judgment as a proven debt because the judgment was entered against the applicant, predated adjudication in bankruptcy and emanated from a court of competent jurisdiction; absent clear evidence of payment or successful challenge in the original forum, the Assignee properly included it in the estate.
28 Feb 2013
The Court recalled the summary judgment because there was a real risk of injustice to the defendant (and Adonis) including potential double recovery; the defendant demonstrated an arguable defence and Adonis had a legitimate claim to the proceeds such that justice required recall under the Horowhenua criteria and r 12.14; recall and joinder were ordered with conditions (costs and procedural directions).
9 Nov 2010
Respondent was entitled to costs on a 2B basis but was not entitled to recover costs for commencing a defence or to recover both item 4.10 and item 13 (to avoid double recovery); item 13 is the appropriate allocation for preparation, an item 11 allowance of $200 was warranted for appellant delay in filing the bundle, and the correct total award was $3,208 (not the $8,460 claimed).