New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Perjury allegations

Legal area

Court

23 May 2023

CARDNO (NZ) LIMITED v STOKES [2023] NZHC 1204

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1204
Court

High Court

The application to set aside the bankruptcy notice was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish that the underlying strike out judgment was vitiated by fraud or perjury; the contested affidavit was from separate proceedings and was not shown to have influenced the strike out (which was primarily based on procedural pleading failures), the additional evidence was neither cogent nor credible (as noted by the Court of Appeal), and s 17 is not a substitute for appeal; accordingly the bankruptcy notice stands but the creditor's time to commence bankruptcy proceedings was extended to 2 J…
28 Apr 2023

DFT v JDN [2023] NZCA 131

Citation

[2023] NZCA 131
Court

Court of Appeal

The High Court correctly struck out the applicant's judicial review under r 15.1(1)(c) and (d) because the application was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process: there was no urgency justifying without‑notice filing, the Family Court judge properly directed the matters proceed on notice under r 416J, and the applicant's filing sought to gain an unfair advantage by avoiding service.
6 Dec 2021

PN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZCA 658

Citation

[2021] NZCA 658
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for leave to bring a second appeal is declined because the applicant failed to show either a matter of general or public importance or a real risk of miscarriage of justice as required by ss 237 and 253; the complained‑of matters were factual, already considered and rejected on full hearing, there is no evidence of concealed foreign production orders, and the sentence was within justified ranges under sentencing law.
15 Feb 2021

ALKAZAZ v ENTERPRISE IT LTD [2021] NZCA 13

Citation

[2021] NZCA 13
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for leave was declined because the matters raised were factual or procedural misunderstandings rather than questions of law of general or public importance under s214, and the applicant failed to identify any legal error warranting the Court of Appeal's consideration.
12 Dec 2019

DERMOT GREGORY NOTTINGHAM v R [2019] NZSC 144

Citation

[2019] NZSC 144
Court

Supreme Court

Extension of time to apply for leave was granted but leave to appeal was refused because the Court found no question of general or public importance and no appearance of a miscarriage of justice: truth may inform but does not dispose of harassment charges, the jury was properly directed on the relevance of truth, and the evidence (including circumstantial evidence) supported the convictions.
16 Apr 2018

TRANTER v THE QUEEN [2018] NZHC 681

Citation

[2018] NZHC 681
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because the habeas corpus procedure cannot be used to challenge convictions entered by a competent court where detention is by lawful conviction; the applicant's remedy is to pursue appeal or appropriate criminal proceedings rather than habeas corpus.
21 Feb 2014

WAITOMO ADVENTURES LIMITED v O'HAGAN [2014] NZHC 247

Citation

[2014] NZHC 247
Court

High Court

Although the creditor had established the statutory prerequisites for adjudication, the court exercised its discretion under s38 to halt the bankruptcy application until further order because the debtor had commenced High Court proceedings alleging the Employment Court judgment was obtained by fraud and adjudication at this time risked unfairly prejudicing the debtor's ability to pursue that action; the fraud challenge appeared arguable enough to justify a conditional halt while imposing obligations on the debtor to expedite the High Court proceedings and preserving the creditor's right to se…
15 May 2013

PUBLIC TRUST V GRAEME LYNDON WHITE HC ROT CIV 2012-463-000833

Citation

openlaw-6ae28d20_fd63_4b10_8753_7d84c515b4a7.pdf
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any genuine cross-claim, counterclaim or triable issue against the Public Trust that would justify setting aside the bankruptcy notice; the claims were a collateral attack on prior unappealed determinations, and the perjury and negligence allegations lacked supporting evidence.
9 Nov 2010

GE MCCREADY V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ORS HC WN CIV-2010-485-1625

Citation

openlaw-f03028fd_9ad7_4e97_88dc_4f2461296c4e.pdf
Court

High Court

The statement of claim failed to plead a reasonably arguable cause of action under s27 NZBORA, contained extensive irrelevant and non-pleading material, lacked necessary particulars as to alleged perjury and misconduct, sought relief that is appellate in nature, and was in parts vexatious and an abuse of process; accordingly it was struck out in its entirety.