31 Oct 2023
The amended statement of claim disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action because the plaintiff lacked standing—he was not a party to the sale, had no pleaded proprietary or beneficiary interest, and did not plead viable tort claims; the pleading was defective and speculative; accordingly the proceeding was struck out.
20 Sept 2023
The application for an extension of time was declined because the applicants had lengthy unexplained delay despite multiple extensions, had not paid ordered security of $27,500, the unresolved stay did not excuse non‑compliance with r 43, the proposed appeal lacked merit and caused prejudice to respondents, and therefore no further indulgence was justified.
4 Sept 2023
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to extend the mandatory 21‑day time limit in s162(4) for seeking special leave to appeal; therefore applications filed out of time must be dismissed.
26 Jun 2023
Extension of time granted; fresh evidence application declined because the evidence was not sufficiently fresh or cogent to create a real risk to the safety of the convictions (material had been disclosed or was tested at trial); leave for a second appeal declined because the proposed grounds did not raise matters of general or public importance nor a real risk of miscarriage of justice — factual findings that Cancian was project manager made him liable and multiple LBPs can supervise the same work; Claymark specifications not decisive for 5 Aneta Way conviction.
12 May 2023
Claimant's PTSD was covered by the accident compensation scheme (coverage under the 1982 Act and deemed coverage under the 2001 Act via date of first treatment); accordingly s 317 of the 2001 Act bars compensatory common law damages for false imprisonment arising directly or indirectly from that personal injury; cross-appeal dismissed and High Court conclusion dismissing compensatory false imprisonment claim upheld.
5 May 2023
The Court found the r 5.45(1)(b) threshold satisfied because the plaintiff disclosed only a half interest in an unencumbered property worth circa NZD 935,000 and likely adverse costs would exceed her available assets and take into account plaintiff's own expected costs; exercising its discretion the Court ordered security in the global sum of NZD 300,000 (NZD 250,000 for defendants' costs plus NZD 50,000 for experts) to be provided within 28 days, capable of being secured by a first registered mortgage over the plaintiff's interest in the Braeview Crescent property; no stay ordered but leave…
24 Apr 2023
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part: the agent's disclaimer did not exclude liability for the misrepresentation, the Fair Trading Act claim was not time-barred, deceit was not established, but the recoverable loss was limited to the overpayment for the farm attributable to the misstatement measured at the transaction date; downstream forced sale losses, wasted capital expenditure and interest stemming from subsequent business decisions were outside PGG's scope of duty; damages were assessed at NZD 300,000 plus interest from settlement; cross-appeal dismissed.
21 Mar 2023
The Deputy Registrar correctly applied the Reekie principles and did not err in declining to dispense with security for costs because the mortgage/caveat was not an adequate substitute due to enforcement costs and delay, the appellants were not claiming impecuniosity and had realisable assets, and the appeal appeared unlikely to succeed; accordingly the review was declined and increased security for costs was required.
23 Sept 2022
The 21 December 2021 settlement agreement released the plaintiffs' claims (and, via clause extending benefit, the bank's employees/advisors) and the plaintiffs' pleadings disclose no reasonably arguable cause of action (no prima facie evidence of fraud, no properly pleaded fiduciary duty, and CCCFA s9C inapplicable); all claims are time-barred under the Limitation Act; accordingly the Court struck out the proceeding under r15.1 as disclosing no arguable cause of action and as an abuse of process.
21 Sept 2022
The facility agreement indemnity covered ANZ's defence of the proceedings, but the indemnity entitlement does not automatically require payment of the full actual costs claimed; the court must assess whether the claimed costs were reasonably incurred. Given the limited issues (limitation and settlement deed) and the disproportionate gap between scaled costs and ANZ's claimed actual costs, many steps were unnecessary. Applying the Black framework and the court's discretion, a 40% reduction of ANZ's claimed actual costs was appropriate, resulting in an award of indemnity costs of $150,917.55 pl…