5 Dec 2022
The application for leave to represent the company was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required by authority; the director's stated preference to conserve funds was insufficient to meet the threshold.
31 Oct 2018
The Commission's affected area declaration was a separate, published and determinative decision and therefore appealable. However Northern Action's attempt to appeal that declaration out of time failed: the extension application was refused because the delay (about 18 months), inadequate justification and prejudice to the Commission made an extension contrary to the interests of justice. The Court refused to order disclosure of the Commission's communications with its expert advisers or further communications with Auckland Council beyond the comprehensive material already lodged because those…
28 Aug 2018
The Court permanently stayed the plaintiffs' claims because continuation would be unjust: although Dunes (as a creditor) has standing to apply under s301, the plaintiffs' protracted, inexcusable delay, the serious prejudice to the defendant (passage of 12 years, destroyed records, defendant's impaired health/memory) and duplication/overlap with a liquidator's claim make a fair trial impossible; additionally Mr Hampson is not personally a creditor by the assignment and lacks standing to pursue s301 relief directly, and the plaintiffs' pleadings remain defective and would require extensive amen…
21 Aug 2015
Application for full indemnity costs dismissed: a self-represented litigant is not entitled to recover costs for a lay advocate where leave to be represented was not granted; ignorance of the need for leave is not a sufficient excuse; the Commissioner's abandonment was reasonable in light of impending legislative change; prior unenforced costs awards and the applicant's bankruptcy further diminish any entitlement.
19 Dec 2014
The Court granted a short extension of time but declined lay representation and refused leave to appeal because the Employment Court did not err in law: its refusal to examine Client A's records under Evidence Act principles was a proper exercise of discretion and immaterial to the outcome, the contested points were factual or not questions of law, and there was no issue of sufficient general or public importance to warrant appeal to the Court of Appeal.
8 Oct 2010
The s 287 presumption of insolvency applied due to non‑compliance with the statutory demand; the defendant failed to provide verified financial evidence to rebut that presumption or to show likely imminence of funds; no public‑interest reason to exercise discretion to refuse liquidation; therefore the Court ordered liquidation under s 241(4)(a) and appointed liquidators.
5 Mar 2010
The application for leave was declined because the principal issues raised were essentially factual and involved the Employment Court's factual findings about ownership and scope of the 2003 agreement and creation of IP in employment; there was no arguable error of law of sufficient general or public importance to justify this Court's intervention under s214.