New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Priority fixture allocation

Legal area

Court

30 Mar 2023

FEDERATED FARMERS SOUTHLAND INCORPORATED v SOUTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 686

Citation

[2023] NZHC 686
Court

High Court

The court granted the application for a combined priority fixture because the public interest in timely resolution of major regional planning issues, the breadth of affected interests, the parties' readiness, and the manageable hearing duration (three days) constituted exceptional circumstances justifying prioritisation, and directed a timetable and procedural directions for the combined hearing.
11 Feb 2022

BODY CORPORATE 126001 v HANNAM & ORS [2022] NZHC 158

Citation

[2022] NZHC 158
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion under r9.34 and the Unit Titles Act to permit non‑invasive, non‑destructive inspections because such testing is potentially relevant to determining whether the proposed s74 scheme and its cost apportionment (ownership interest v work‑required apportionment) should be approved; given the limited life of temporary repairs and the proceedings' duration, the Court approved priority allocation in principle and assigned the file to a judge for case management to determine hearing time and timetable.
4 Jun 2020

GAVIN v POWELL [2020] NZHC 1224

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1224
Court

High Court

The application for a priority fixture was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional and imminent hardship; her financial evidence was unreliable and not exceptional given significant asset values and household income; the proceeding was not trial-ready and the proposed timetable was unrealistic; granting priority would unfairly prejudice defendants including deprivation of their chosen senior counsel; therefore justice did not require jumping the queue for hearing time.
14 Jul 2011

CHOW GROUP LIMITED V WALTON HC AK CIV-2011-404-3148

Citation

openlaw-4ec4ddd7_f714_4559_982d_6df22fcfcfe0.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its broad discretion under r 7.13 and, having found the plaintiff had an arguable case and demonstrated potential prejudice from enforcement/liquidation while no prejudice to defendants was shown, ordered a priority one-day hearing of the substantive judicial review on 9 August 2011 with a specific timetable for affidavits and submissions; consequential enforcement and liquidation proceedings were not determined and remain subject to their own jurisdictions.

New Zealand Case Law

FEDERATED FARMERS SOUTHLAND INCORPORATED v SOUTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 686

BODY CORPORATE 126001 v HANNAM & ORS [2022] NZHC 158

GAVIN v POWELL [2020] NZHC 1224

CHOW GROUP LIMITED V WALTON HC AK CIV-2011-404-3148