New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review of interlocutory decision

Legal area

Court

27 Apr 2021

BODY CORPORATE 355492 v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 894

Citation

[2021] NZHC 894
Court

High Court

The Court granted the Council an extension of time to bring the review and ordered the plaintiffs to provide a further breakdown of the estimated remedial costs by category of work (aligned to the plaintiffs' supplied scope of works) by 31 July 2021; the Court held that at this advanced stage of litigation greater particularisation of estimated costs (by category) is required to inform the Council of its potential liability, while accepting precise apportionment by individual defect may be impractical and estimates are acceptable.
28 May 2020

HARRISON v HARRISON [2020] NZCA 189

Citation

[2020] NZCA 189
Court

Court of Appeal

Cooper J's decision to decline appointment of a litigation guardian was correct and is affirmed because the medical and other material did not establish that Ms Harrison met the r 4.29 definition of an 'incapacitated person' (no evidence she could not understand issues or give instructions), and Lang J's different, limited High Court appointment did not bind this Court.
14 Jul 2010

LISTER AND ORS V 2 HARROGATE STREET LIMITED AND ORS HC CHCH CIV-2008-409-001071

Citation

openlaw-fff94aee_38e1_4450_8777_281e66909f76.pdf
Court

High Court

Laidlaw v Parsonage binds the court: a nominee under a sale agreement obtains the benefit of the contract under s 4 of the Contracts (Privity) Act 1982; the strike out application was correctly dismissed because the pleaded tort duty is novel and factually sensitive and cannot be said with certainty to be unsustainable without trial; the Associate Judge's decision is upheld.
18 Jun 2010

GIBSON V FISHER AND ORS HC AK CIV-2006-404-103

Citation

openlaw-34c3cd2f_4e9f_49af_99a6_f714e5a68af2.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to apply out of time was dismissed because, although the short delay and misunderstanding of procedure were insufficiently prejudicial, the substantive challenge could not surmount the high threshold for review: the Associate Judge had jurisdiction (plaintiff resident abroad and impecunious), conducted a careful merits assessment concluding the plaintiff's prospects were very low, and was not plainly wrong; defendants were entitled to protection by security for costs.
23 Jul 2009

VAUGHAN V CHRISTIE AND ORS HC WN CIV 2009-485-000603

Citation

openlaw-42d5289c_ee2b_475b_aec8_c1722ac0e2d2.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for an extension of time is refused because the proposed review has no reasonable prospect of success: the Associate Judge's order for security for costs was a considered exercise of discretion, the quantum ($60,000) was proportionate and unassailable on the material before the court, the alleged grounds (perjury, natural justice, public interest, website material) lacked substance or evidential support, and the proceeding remains stayed unless the plaintiff provides the ordered security.

New Zealand Case Law

BODY CORPORATE 355492 v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 894

HARRISON v HARRISON [2020] NZCA 189

LISTER AND ORS V 2 HARROGATE STREET LIMITED AND ORS HC CHCH CIV-2008-409-001071

GIBSON V FISHER AND ORS HC AK CIV-2006-404-103

VAUGHAN V CHRISTIE AND ORS HC WN CIV 2009-485-000603