New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prejudice and costs

Legal area

Court

12 Jun 2020

KAMEL MOHAMED v GUARDIANS OF NEW ZEALAND SUPERANNUATION [2020] NZHC 1324

Citation

(2020) 25 PRNZ205
Court

High Court

Leave to intervene was granted because the Fertiliser Association, through its members (Ravensdown and Ballance), has a material interest that could be affected by the proceedings; the Association can provide a distinct and useful perspective on issues (including public international law context) and the prejudice to the parties is minimal provided the intervention is confined to narrow, conditional terms; accordingly conditional leave to intervene was appropriate and granted.
18 Dec 2018

SHEN v OSSYANIN [2018] NZHC 3385

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3385
Court

High Court

The application to adduce the invoices and to recall witnesses was refused because the documents should have been discovered earlier and no adequate explanation for non‑discovery was provided; the documents had limited probative value on the central issue and their admission would cause unfair prejudice and significant expense by requiring witness recall; however leave to call Andreus Mitalaukis was granted as unopposed and appropriate.
23 Nov 2012

PAUL WILLIAMS AND MURRAY GRAHAM MEXTED V MAHANGA E TU INCORPORATED HC WN CIV 2012-485-1519

Citation

openlaw-46b2b461_032c_471a_9c67_dbe9632fa48c.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held there was no error of law: the Environment Court did not misapply legal principle in concluding coastal hazards fell within the broadly and reasonably interpreted notice of appeal; the Judge's comment on potentially calling evidence under s276 was an obiter observation and not central to the ruling; and the Environment Court had addressed prejudice and costs, so there was no failure to have regard to a relevant matter. The appeal was dismissed.
15 Feb 2006

PACIFIC FERRIES LIMITED V ARTNL HARBOUR BERTHS LTD AND ORS HC AK CIV-2004-404-4095

Citation

openlaw-38feba71_35d7_41b2_8383_c12671d3169e.pdf
Court

High Court

The court granted leave to file the second amended statement of claim in the respects uncontested, found that issues of additional discovery and prejudice could be managed by orders and timetable adjustments rather than refusing amendment, and directed that Waiheke Shipping Limited be added as a fourth defendant and served so it can be heard because the relief sought might affect its rights.

New Zealand Case Law

KAMEL MOHAMED v GUARDIANS OF NEW ZEALAND SUPERANNUATION [2020] NZHC 1324

SHEN v OSSYANIN [2018] NZHC 3385

PAUL WILLIAMS AND MURRAY GRAHAM MEXTED V MAHANGA E TU INCORPORATED HC WN CIV 2012-485-1519

PACIFIC FERRIES LIMITED V ARTNL HARBOUR BERTHS LTD AND ORS HC AK CIV-2004-404-4095