New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evidential sufficiency

Legal area

Court

30 Oct 2023

GREENDRAKE v McCONNOCHIE [2023] NZCA 537

Citation

[2023] NZCA 537
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the High Court costs order because the discretion to award costs for an unsuccessful application for leave to appeal under s 8 requires something significantly out of the ordinary; the leave application here was not frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith, and the High Court erred by focusing on the merits of the underlying prosecution rather than the circumstances of the leave application; there was no basis to exceed the statutory scale.
14 Aug 2023

GREENDRAKE v McCONNOCHIE [2023] NZHC 2166

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2166
Court

High Court

The High Court held the District Court erred in awarding increased costs because there was no manifest basis to exceed statutory scale: the prosecution survived preliminary dismissal applications and was not shown to be in bad faith or of special difficulty, complexity or importance; reliance on the SPCA's decision and the appellant's personal interest was misplaced; alleged procedural failings under s364 CPA were not identified or proven; accordingly the $10,000 award was quashed and replaced by statutory scale costs of $452.00.
6 Apr 2023

GREENDRAKE v McCONNOCHIE [2023] NZHC 778

Citation

[2023] NZHC 778
Court

High Court

The High Court exercised its discretion under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act and related authorities to award costs because the leave to appeal was meritless, reflecting a prosecution that lacked sufficient evidence from the outset; having regard to 2B benchmarks and the criminal context the court fixed a compensatory award of $4,500.00.
10 Mar 2023

RICHARD LINCOLN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 467

Citation

[2023] NZHC 467
Court

High Court

The High Court declined leave to appeal out of time and dismissed the substantive appeal because the District Court did not err in exercising its s5 discretion: the prosecution was commenced and continued in good faith with sufficient evidence at the time of charging, the investigation was reasonable, and the appellant's conduct during investigation and trial weighed against awarding costs; references to civil proceedings were of limited relevance and did not render the decision unlawful.
12 Oct 2022

DFT v AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT & CMN [2022] NZCA 477

Citation

[2022] NZCA 477
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court strike-out/dismissal and directed the judicial review proceeding be listed for mention in the High Court because striking out as 'plainly an abuse of process' was not justified: judicial review was an available and appropriate remedy to challenge a s26 decision where arguable grounds of review (procedural unfairness, omission to require formal statements/exhibits, irrationality) were present and mere poor pleading by a self-represented litigant did not meet the high threshold for abuse of process; suppression protecting the children’s ide…
3 Dec 2021

AUCKLAND COUNCIL v CABLE BAY WINE LTD [2021] NZHC 3290

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3290
Court

High Court

The High Court held it had jurisdiction under s 296(3)(b) because the District Court's preliminary ruling operated as a dismissal/determination of the charges; the District Court erred by failing to purposively interpret 'another lot' and by conflating interpretation with burden — 85 Church Bay Road is 'another lot' for condition 25 and the measurements taken there could support the March and June 2018 charges; the District Court also erred in holding that the absence of the sound measurement file necessarily prevented application of a SAC (+5dB) where unchallenged evidence supported that adj…
10 Oct 2019

TONY DOUGLAS ROBERTSON v R [2019] NZSC 110

Citation

[2019] NZSC 110
Court

Supreme Court

No new or unconsidered matter was identified; the evidential matters were previously raised and considered in the leave judgment, and nothing advanced justified re-argument or recall, so the application for recall is dismissed.
22 Jul 2019

MICHAEL EDWIN KOOIMAN v F M CUSTODIANS LIMITED [2019] NZSC 77

Citation

[2019] NZSC 77
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the challenge to the authority of the person who filed the adjudication was speculative, the affidavit provided adequate evidence of authority in the circumstances (reinforced by the solicitor's warrant under r 5.37 and confirmation at hearing), the issue did not raise matters of general or public importance under s 74 Senior Courts Act 2016, and there was no substantial miscarriage of justice warranting further appeal.
2 May 2018

CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL v P & E LIMITED & OTHERS [2018] NZHC 905

Citation

[2018] NZHC 905
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal: the Environment Court did not err in law because it had an evidential foundation for imposing the 800 L/s cut-off, drawn from and supported by hydrological evidence (hydrograph, MALF estimates, quantified gravel losses) together with expert ecological evidence and planning instruments; the Court's inference that preserving MALF plus allowance for gravel losses would avoid more than minor ecological effects was open on the evidence and not unreasonable.
22 Dec 2017

WOJCIECH KLEPACKI (VOYTEK KLEPATSKI) v INSTITUTION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS NEW ZEALAND [2017] NZHC 3300

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3300
Court

High Court

The High Court found no sufficient evidence that non‑engagement of a geotechnical engineer created a risk of 'significant consequences' under r 48; the District Court and Council therefore made an error of law by upholding the breach absent evidential foundation, and the disciplinary orders were quashed.