23 May 2022
Leave to appeal was refused because the original appointment application was a unilateral process with limited prejudice to third parties, r7.23 obligations are context‑dependent and did not justify striking out on the evidence, the defendants failed to show matters of general or public importance or sufficient prejudice to outweigh delay, and the proposed appeal lacked strong prospects of success.
6 Aug 2018
The bank had no general duty to explain the guarantee and the certification that officers had explained it was not an essential element of the claim; even if the certification were false there was no arguable defence (no misrepresentation, deceit or negligence established) and the guarantee claim succeeded on the undisputed essential elements; the appeal was dismissed and summary judgment affirmed.
12 Dec 2013
The substituted service order was improperly obtained because the Commissioner failed to disclose material information (ownership of an Auckland property and available contact details) and did not demonstrate reasonable follow-up steps after a significant delay; as a result the adjudication should not have been made and, exercising discretion under s 309(1)(a), the Court annulled the adjudication subject to conditions.