19 May 2022
The Court granted a short adjournment because refusing it would have left the appellant without counsel and no other advocate could digest the material in time; the need for a fair hearing with representation outweighed the public interest in immediate open identification, and the Registrar was directed to allocate a priority fixture to limit delay.
12 Oct 2018
The court maintained and supplemented interim orders because a mortgagee sale was imminent and the only practicable urgent remedy to avoid enforcement was to order specific performance of the sale of 27 and 27A Puhinui Road to the plaintiffs subject to without prejudice protection; sale proceeds were to be applied first to mortgage repayment and held in trust pending substantive resolution, and interim occupancy by the third defendant was permitted to mitigate personal hardship.
28 Sept 2018
The application for a priority fixture was dismissed because the applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or sufficient evidence of imminent financial prejudice or mortgagee sale to justify priority listing; however the court accommodated expedition by listing the substantive proceeding and the respondent's forthcoming relief against forfeiture application for a two-day hearing on 4 February 2019 and issued directions for filing and pre-trial steps.
25 May 2018
The application was dismissed because the timetable set by Fitzgerald J had properly allowed for necessary steps before trial, the registry had no available trial time of the required duration before year-end, and the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that delay until 4 February 2019 would cause such an injustice as to justify displacing the existing timetable.
22 May 2018
The Court held that the public interest and the demonstrated potential for ongoing alcohol-related harm constituted exceptional circumstances justifying a priority fixture; accordingly the application for a priority five-day fixture was granted to avoid undue delay in resolving issues affecting the whole Auckland region and implementation of the Provisional Local Alcohol Policy.
28 Jun 2017
Costs lie where they fall because both parties contributed equally to unnecessary costs: Millstone should have promptly notified it would not appeal and withdraw the caveat after Mallon J's judgment, and Myoak should have discontinued when it learned the caveat was withdrawn; accordingly neither party is entitled to costs.
30 Nov 2016
The Court upheld the defendant's claim of litigation privilege over document AM1431 under s56 Evidence Act 2006 and refused inspection; the other applications were resolved or fell away, and because of the mixed results and the plaintiffs' pragmatic but unaccepted proposal for counsel-only inspection, the Court ordered that costs lie where they fall.
11 Nov 2016
The application for a priority fixture was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required: the letter agreement did not evidence a paralysing standstill, there was no material evidence the board could not function or that the company's future was at risk, and the proceeding was not ready for trial so priority would unfairly prejudice other litigants.
20 Jul 2010
The stay was refused because the appeal would not be rendered nugatory by allowing the High Court proceeding to advance, the balance of convenience and interests of justice favored progressing the case in light of the plaintiff's imminent financial difficulty and need to preserve an effective remedy, and those considerations outweighed the defendants' arguable prospects on appeal; accordingly the Court granted a priority fixture and set the trial date.
11 Nov 2008
Given the appellant's present financial position and the likelihood of substantial matrimonial property at final resolution, security for costs was waived; a priority fixture was refused because no earlier hearing dates were available and other litigants' interests required balance, but Registrar may allocate any earlier February date if it becomes available; leave to adduce further evidence was granted narrowly under r 716(3) restricted to the appellant's changed financial circumstances since the Family Court hearing with provision for respondent's reply; the fixture date and timetable were…