27 Jun 2023
Stay dismissed because the interests of justice and statutory consumer protection require preventing further risk to the public given Tribunal findings of misuse of client funds, lack of candour, negligent conduct, and prior dishonesty convictions establishing a continuing pattern; proposed supervision and limited retainer were inadequate to mitigate real risk.
10 Dec 2021
An interim stay was necessary and appropriate; the Court granted a stay of the District Court's media publication decision until 2.15 pm on 16 December 2021, ordered service on the Crown and TVNZ forthwith, and listed the substantive hearing for that time, with reasons to be provided subsequently.
20 Dec 2019
Balancing the orthodox nature and apparent weakness of the appeal against the disproportionate and potentially nugatory effect of allowing seizure of the appellant's home (the yacht) for a relatively small debt, the Court granted an interim, limited stay of enforcement preventing seizure of the yacht, allowed without-notice relief due to urgency, and required service and a prompt hearing with leave for respondent to apply to vary or rescind.
26 Aug 2014
An interim stay preventing commencement of bankruptcy proceedings was necessary to preserve the applicant's non-bankrupt status and was granted in the exercise of the Court's discretion because the applicant's judicial review was not so hopeless as to foreclose preservation of that status, but given the public interest and delay the stay is limited in duration to the determination of the Commissioner's strike-out application.
6 Sept 2012
The High Court has power under s 8(1)(b) of the Judicature Amendment Act to grant interim stays of proceedings to preserve the applicant's position; on the facts a pragmatic interim stay of the Environment Court orders of 31 August and suspension of UDS partners' filing obligations until the Environment Court hearing on 21 September 2012 was appropriate, without prejudging the merits or criticising the Environment Court judge's earlier decisions.
9 Mar 2011
The interim stay was lifted subject to the provision of security for costs of $200,000 (stay remains until security provided), the representative order was approved, directions were given for disclosure and funding proof, the actual funder must satisfy the Court it can meet full costs and will not prejudice qualifying shareholders, and the defendants' applications to strike out the second cause of action were granted.
1 Jul 2008
The Court exercised its discretion to grant the application and extended the interim stay until 5 pm on 15 July 2008.
28 Sept 2007
The application to extend the interim stay was dismissed because any further stay should be decided by the Court of Appeal rather than left under the control of the High Court, particularly given findings that the applicant was gaming the appellate process and the need to incentivise prompt prosecution of appeal rights.
20 Jul 2007
The application for leave is dismissed because the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to grant leave against Family Court decisions and an appeal following the Court of Appeal's refusal is barred by s7(b); a direct appeal from the High Court under s14 requires extremely compelling circumstances which are absent here given the absence of issues of principle and the factual findings that did not satisfy s106 defences; accordingly leave is refused and the interim stay is revoked.