New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to apply

Legal area

Court

22 Jun 2022

MARONG v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 1489

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1489
Court

High Court

Leave to apply for summary judgment was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to file the substantive affidavits required by r12.4(5) verifying his allegations and belief that the defendant had no defence, the statement of claim was unsuitably voluminous and mixed evidence and submissions, and genuine factual disputes exist that require discovery and oral evidence such that summary determination would be futile and contrary to the interests of justice.
26 Nov 2021

WILLIAMS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 3194

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3194
Court

High Court

The High Court accepted the sentencing judge was entitled to find the appellant unsuitable for home detention given repeated non-compliance with court orders, ongoing offending while on bail and supervision, and lack of a suitable address; however, because rehabilitation at a residential facility with adequate oversight could mitigate absconding risk, the appellant was granted leave to apply to convert the balance of her sentence to home detention at an appropriate rehabilitative facility.
13 Sept 2021

PATEL v MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2021] NZHC 2385

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2385
Court

High Court

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the delay was lengthy, no special circumstances were demonstrated to meet the high statutory threshold in s 247(1)(a), and s 64(1)(ab) is properly applied by reference to the date a deportation order may be served under s 175A (so the visa was cancelled from 21 September 2019), meaning the applicant's statutory argument provided no basis for extension.
23 Jul 2021

BBG HOLDINGS LIMITED (in liquidation) v FATUPAITO and BOWKER as joint and several liquidators of CIT HOLDINGS LIMITED (in liquidation) [2021] NZHC 1877

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1877
Court

High Court

Leave granted because BBG established an arguable case with credible contemporaneous documentary evidence and a reasonable likelihood the Court would reverse; the liquidators' reversal was unreasonable given the sale agreement did not cover all properties where works occurred, the invoices were contemporaneous recharges issued while the same director controlled both companies, and the Waimarie joint venture and surrounding facts supported an objective finding that CIT had contracted to reimburse the earthworks. Accordingly the liquidators' decision rejecting BBG's claim is reversed and BBG's…
18 Mar 2021

CARTWRIGHT & ANOR v JOSEPH & ORS [2021] NZHC 560

Citation

[2021] NZHC 560
Court

High Court

The court declined to refuse or reduce costs under r14.7(g), found the plaintiffs' application procedurally and evidentially deficient and beyond the limited leave previously granted, treated the memorandum as an application but by analogy to step 23 of Schedule 3 awarded costs of $1,434 to the executors.
8 Nov 2018

KHAN v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 2897

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2897
Court

High Court

Leave to apply for home detention does not extinguish judicial discretion to refuse substitution; where leave was expressly conditioned on access to residential rehabilitation the sentencing judge legitimately refused substitution when the applicant sought home detention at his father's address which did not meet that condition, consistent with s80I and the discretionary 'may' in s80K(4).
27 Aug 2018

DAISLEY v WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 2211

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2211
Court

High Court

Leave for summary judgment was refused because there are arguable defences and substantial contested issues of fact and law (novelty of any duty of care for regulatory prosecution, conflicting authority on actionable breach of statutory duty under the RMA, factual disputes about instructions to the lawyer, potential limitation/concealment issues and delay), such that summary determination of liability is inappropriate.
13 Nov 2015

JS v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2015] NZHC 2832

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2832
Court

High Court

Leave to bring review was declined because the applicant's delay (about four months) against the 28‑day statutory limit was excessive, the reasons for delay did not amount to 'special circumstances' as required by Rajan, the substantive case was not sufficiently meritorious (adverse credibility findings were decisive), and the Tribunal properly considered country information and international conventions.
14 Aug 2014

HEENAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZHC 1911

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1911
Court

High Court

Leave granted because the trial in the District Court proceeded as an action on a cheque that, if the date was altered without the drawer's assent, may have been void under s 64 Bills of Exchange Act 1908; that error of law and the procedural truncation of a full merits inquiry meant Heenan did not receive a just trial and the fraud allegation had not been finally and exhaustively determined between the parties, so conditional leave to apply to set aside the judgment and to commence proceedings was justified.
11 Aug 2014

WEST v GRANT [2014] NZHC 1880

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1880
Court

High Court

The Associate Judge lawfully exercised his discretion in granting leave to commence by originating application; the decision was not based on a wrong principle nor otherwise open to review on the grounds advanced, and the Liquidators may seek directions for discovery under the Rules.