New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to discontinue

Legal area

Court

22 Oct 2021

CHRISTIAN v BAIN [2021] NZHC 2834

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2834
Court

High Court

The Court held that the inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to override a statutory jury election under s 16(3), but a party who has given a jury notice may, with leave, withdraw that election; accordingly the plaintiff was granted leave to withdraw his jury notice on the condition he consents to an extension of time permitting the defendant to give a jury notice by 8 November 2021, and no order as to costs was made.
18 Sept 2020

KAIANGA ORA_x001e_HOME LINK COMMUNITIES (formerly HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION v ARCHITEX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2464

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2464
Court

High Court

Leave to discontinue against Canam was declined because discontinuance would cause significant injustice to remaining defendants who would lose the ability to pursue claims against Canam due to the expired 10-year limitation in s 393 Building Act 2004; therefore discontinuance without consent of all defendants was not permitted under r 15.20(4).
20 Dec 2019

MAYHEW v FUTURE MOBILITY SOLUTIONS LT D [2019] NZHC 3302

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3302
Court

High Court

The application to lift the stay and for leave to discontinue against Sealegs is refused because the right to arbitrate remains alive, real risks of overlapping and inconsistent findings persist, no adequate amended pleadings or binding undertaking were presented to remove overlap, and unresolved indemnity and discovery issues mean Sealegs may still be necessary to adjudicate core disputes; the appropriate time to revisit discontinuance is after the arbitration concludes or if delay is attributable to the defendants.
16 Feb 2017

SISSON v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2017] NZHC 182

Citation

[2017] NZHC 182
Court

High Court

Leave to discontinue was granted because the applicant accepted her claim had fallen away; the court reserved the question of costs and made specific directions for submissions and a hearing to determine costs.
17 Nov 2015

NGĀTI TE ATA v N Z STEEL MINING LTD & ORS [2015] NZCA 547

Citation

[2015] NZCA 547
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the High Court's exercise of discretion to release New Zealand Steel from its 1990 undertaking because materially changed circumstances over 24 years — including the pendency of substantive proceedings scheduled for April 2016, New Zealand Steel's confirmed time-limited commitment not to mine before 1 September 2016, and statutory heritage processes — made the undertaking unnecessary to protect Ngāti Te Ata and therefore continuation would not be justified.
29 Jul 2014

BODY CORPORATE 325261 v MCDONOUGH & ORS [2014] NZHC 1821

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1821
Court

High Court

Leave to discontinue claims against settled defendants was granted while preserving settled defendants as parties for purposes of SML's cross-claims. Leave to file the 10th amended statement of claim was granted in part and declined in part: amendments that merely update or correct pleadings and reflect expert conferencing were permitted; proposed amendments expressly adding anxiety about structural safety and certain late stigma evidence were declined because they risk prejudicing SML at a late stage. Proposed increases in floor diaphragm remediation estimates were permitted to the extent th…
9 May 2013

PERPETUAL TRUST LIMITED V MAINZEAL PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-7597

Citation

openlaw-985cd8ff_fff4_4770_b6b2_048bb3634046.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court ordered conditional procedural relief: the first defendant's cross‑claim against the seventh defendant is struck out conditionally because the first defendant, now in liquidation, is unlikely to take further steps; the plaintiffs are granted leave to discontinue their claim against the seventh defendant under r 15.20(4) because there was no opposition and the circumstances matched prior authority, both orders being conditional on no party within 10 working days indicating opposition; discontinuances already filed render other strike‑out applications moot; costs lie where they fall a…
20 Dec 2012

REID & ORS V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC AK CIV 2006-404-004222

Citation

openlaw-9a285217_53e5_4fb0_ae8f_d84f5db613d6.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to discontinue was granted to the second plaintiff on terms: he must pay $7,500 as a contribution to the $15,000 costs award already paid by the first plaintiff and his undertaking to meet any costs order against him up to the date of his settlement (subject to being served and heard) is recorded; it was inappropriate to fix contribution for hypothetical future costs, no waiver of indirect interest is ordered, and indemnity costs are refused though the second plaintiff is awarded 2B costs for the application.
20 Jun 2011

JACK V CARVER HC AK CIV-2008-404-5910

Citation

openlaw-913f1f68_bb39_4faa_b4de_5d9cbd1d9ab3.pdf
Court

High Court

The Associate Judge did not breach natural justice in granting leave to discontinue; given the plaintiffs' lack of prospect of recovery against impecunious defendants and the prior summary judgment and related proceedings the discontinuance was appropriate and should not be set aside; no costs awarded on the review.
23 Jun 2010

TOURISM HOLDINGS LIMITED V THORBURN CONSULTANTS (NZ) LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-8051

Citation

openlaw-8461d63c_8a5e_4ce4_8aad_29e8c93d99c0.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave for the second defendant to discontinue its cross-claim because, by analogy with the rules governing plaintiffs and pursuant to the Court's power under r 1.6, a cross-claimant is entitled to discontinue its claim absent a good reason shown by an opposing co-defendant; the third defendant failed to demonstrate any legal necessity or prejudice sufficient to prevent discontinuance and no exceptional circumstances (as in Mainzeal) existed.