7 Oct 2022
Applications for access to court documents under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 must be determined by a Judge of the High Court (unless a Judge refers the request to a Registrar); Associate Judges do not have statutory power to decide such applications and the High Court decision by an Associate Judge must be set aside and remitted to a Judge for determination.
12 Aug 2022
Recall application dismissed: (1) applicants had standing; (2) no breach of natural justice because counsel was on notice and addressed contractual basis and caveat focus is the interest as worded, not the pleaded substantive causes of action; (3) Associate Judges lack jurisdiction to determine vacant possession orders when not by summary judgment but that defect did not justify recall because the possession application was not finally determined and did not affect the substance of the decision; (4) costs ordered against former executors personally to reflect their unreasonable conduct — two…
21 Jun 2022
The Court granted media access to the pleadings, holding that the public interest in disclosure outweighed countervailing factors at this stage, and concluded that the term 'Judge' in the Access Rules should be interpreted to include Associate Judges of the High Court while recognising the point merits definitive appellate determination.
23 Sept 2020
Because ATF served a statutory demand that was not complied with and AOLP made no steps to set it aside, AOLP was deemed unable to pay its debts under LPA s91; exercising the Court's discretion under ss89 and 90(1)(h) the Court appointed Mr Gareth Hoole and Mr Clive Bish as liquidators; Associate Judges have jurisdiction to make such appointments under s20(2)(b) of the Senior Courts Act read with the Companies Act and the LPA.
20 Dec 2018
The Court lacks jurisdiction to review the Associate Judge's summary judgment decision in the High Court (such challenges must be appealed to the Court of Appeal), but the Court had jurisdiction to review the strike out of a counterclaim that relates to a proceeding pending before 1 March 2017; on the merits the counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action (failed to plead elements of negligence or contract) and was properly struck out, so the review was dismissed and related applications (stay and leave to adduce evidence) were refused.
4 Apr 2014
The Associate Judge's strike out decision was made in chambers (described as 'open court for chambers'), therefore no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal under s 26P(2) arises; the correct route is an application to the High Court for review under s 26P(1); the bias allegations failed to satisfy the Saxmere test and were dismissed.
20 Jul 2011
The High Court did not have jurisdiction to review the Associate Judge's open Court decision declining annulment because such matters must be heard in open Court under the Judicature Act and are not reviewable under s26P(1); alternatively, s414(1) did not authorise review because the decision was fully considered and reserved. Identified errors in the costs order (GST inclusion) were immaterial to the adjudication given concession by the creditor not to pursue the GST and the existence of multiple unpaid costs orders.
7 Apr 2009
Section 123(4) HRA's 30-day 'giving notice' requirement is mandatory and requires notice to the High Court, the Human Rights Review Tribunal and the affected parties; neither respondent nor Tribunal effectively waived that jurisdictional requirement; the High Court lacked power under r5 to cure the statutory non-compliance, so the appeal was not properly brought and is dismissed.
27 Mar 2007
The application to wind up the company under the just and equitable ground was adjourned and not granted because the company is viable, alternative remedies exist under the constitution (clause 15.3 transfer notice) that should be pursued first, and liquidation would be premature; the matter was listed for further call to allow those remedies to be explored.
22 Dec 2005
Associate Judges have jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief in the context of summary judgment applications because s 26I(1)(a) grants them all the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court in relation to summary judgment; the restrictions in ss 26IA and 26J relate to ancillary or chambers jurisdiction and do not negate s 26I, particularly as summary judgment hearings are in court and not chambers, and the High Court Rules do not exclude injunctive relief from the summary judgment procedure.