1 Nov 2023
None of the procedural complaints advanced could impugn or reverse the District Court minute; they were non-justiciable for judicial review and the proceeding was frivolous and/or vexatious and therefore struck out; the applicant's request for a transcript was declined for lack of good reason in the interests of justice.
26 Mar 2021
Dishonesty for s 228 was established by proof that Bracken authorised and procured GST returns he knew were based on false information: he arranged or instructed creation of forged tax invoices, caused circular bank withdrawals and re-deposits to simulate payments, and falsely characterised exports to support zero-rating; the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that significant supplier invoices and transactions were fictitious and that BEL obtained undue GST refunds, therefore Bracken was guilty on all charges.
17 Nov 2017
The application was dismissed because the detention is lawful under a valid warrant and a sentence of preventive detention imposed by Brewer J on 11 August 2017, and the applicant's arguments lacked any prospect of success.
11 Jul 2017
The defendants failed to provide credible, particularised or documented evidence of any variation to the payment obligations and were precluded by the earlier unless order from filing further material; consequently there is no reasonably arguable defence to liability (save quantum), so summary judgment entered for the plaintiff for the unpaid balance with interest and indemnity costs.
28 Mar 2017
Defendants failed to demonstrate that India is clearly a more appropriate forum; alternative means exist to obtain Indian evidence and documents (video link, letters of request, discovery from parties), and there are real concerns that the Indian police investigation process may not secure substantial justice for the parties; accordingly the stay application is dismissed.
21 Aug 2014
The application was dismissed because the applicant was lawfully detained under a District Court warrant of commitment, the habeas corpus remedy cannot be used to challenge a bail ruling under s 14(2)(b) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001, and jurisdictional objections based on Maori sovereignty had been previously rejected by appellate authority making the challenge plainly unarguable.
6 Aug 2013
The Court found no arguable genuine dispute: the arbitrator had addressed jurisdiction in reasoned awards, Wilbur did not and is out of time to challenge those awards under the Arbitration Act 1996, the award has been entered as a High Court judgment and Wilbur's solvency does not justify setting aside an indisputable debt; accordingly the statutory demand was not set aside and the application was dismissed.
10 Sept 2012
The landlord's 24 April 2012 letter to the arbitrator constituted credible evidence from which it was reasonable to infer the landlord would be unable to pay an adverse costs award; balancing the discretionary factors (including the landlord's conduct, third party funding and that security would not prevent prosecution of the claim) the Court ordered security for costs of $11,250 payable to Court by 4.00 pm 14 September 2012, permitting application of $5,000 in the solicitor's trust account.
11 Jul 2012
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant raised only jurisdictional issues previously rejected and failed to show any arguable substantial miscarriage of justice or that the interests of justice justified granting leave.
3 Nov 2009
Because the proceedings are complex, have a significant appellate history and because hearing by an Associate Judge would introduce an additional review layer under s26P, the Court transferred the interlocutory jurisdiction challenge to a Judge under s26N and referred the file to the Civil List Judge for assignment.