New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural default

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2023

RENAULT S.A.S. v ALLWAYS HIRE LTD [2023] NZHC 304

Citation

[2023] NZHC 304
Court

High Court

Renault failed to establish special reasons for admitting non‑fresh evidence on appeal; the Trade Marks Act and Regulations require owners opposing revocation to file a counterstatement and evidence at first instance and reg96(2) mandated decision on the applicant's documents when Renault did not; absent an explanation or exceptional circumstances the court must refuse leave and dismiss the appeal, upholding the Assistant Commissioner's revocation decision.
13 May 2022

NAVARATNAM v HG METAL MANUFACTURING LTD [2022] NZCA 185

Citation

[2022] NZCA 185
Court

Court of Appeal

Although the appellants were in significant and repeated default and their conduct was unsatisfactory, the belated payment of security for costs remedied the specific default and the interests of justice required the appeal to proceed on the merits; accordingly the Court declined to strike out the appeal but awarded costs for the step and imposed a strict timetable and limits on representation.
6 May 2022

STEPHEN GILBERT ANDERSON v NZI INTERNATIONAL ACCEPTANCES LIMITED, NZI SECURITIES LIMITED AND NZI FINANCES LIMITED [2022] NZCA 167

Citation

[2022] NZCA 167
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for recall was declined because the applicant’s late attempt to raise arguments available at the original hearing does not satisfy the strict Horowhenua County criteria for recall; there is no statutory or intervening authoritative decision nor a counsel oversight warranting recall, and the claimed grounds do not constitute the required 'very special reason.'
21 Nov 2018

MCCORKINDALE v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZCA 512

Citation

[2018] NZCA 512
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time granted because the appellant promptly initiated appeal proceedings, delay was due to counsel error and administrative fee matters beyond the appellant's personal control, the respondent identified no prejudice, and the appeal raised important liberty and public interest issues; on that basis the interests of justice required granting the extension.
10 Dec 2014

ORLOV v NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL CA555/2014 [2014] NZCA 605

Citation

[2014] NZCA 605
Court

Court of Appeal

The extension of time was granted because the one‑day delay was minimal, there was a reasonable explanation (a numerical error), no prejudice to respondents, and the appeal was arguable once proper particularised grounds were filed; the recusal application was dismissed because the matters relied on did not meet the test for apparent bias.
23 Jun 2014

MOODIE v STRACHAN CA871/2013 [2014] NZCA 260

Citation

[2014] NZCA 260
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was struck out because the appellant failed to pay prescribed security for costs within the required period, did not obtain timely dispensation or provide evidence of impecuniosity, had defaulted on filing obligations with the fixture imminent causing prejudice to the respondent, and the appellant's equitable cross-claim had no realistic prospect of producing an award sufficient to offset the judgment debt; exercise of the Court's discretion therefore required striking out and awarding costs to the respondent.
28 Jun 2013

GPM V JHM CA553/2012 [2013] NZCA 269

Citation

[2013] NZCA 269
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for recall was dismissed because the alleged omissions were not material or relevant to the issues on appeal, the prior Family Court recall judgment did not affect the appeal, and the applicant's submissions amounted to an attempt to re-argue the merits rather than demonstrating the exceptional circumstances required to recall a judgment.
21 Jun 2012

MISIUK v R SC 133/2011

Citation

SC 133/2011
Court

Supreme Court

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because they lacked merit and the applicant had not prosecuted the matters by failing to file timely submissions; the applicant's deportation was noted but dismissal was grounded on lack of merit and non-prosecution.
13 Mar 2012

CHANG-HOOKER V ROOKE HC AK CIV-2011-404-6074

Citation

openlaw-141ee886_db36_4294_b94a_d6b13a048252.pdf
Court

High Court

Applications dismissed because the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for delay and the merits raised were unsuitable for appellate determination; fraud allegations should be pursued by fresh proceedings in the originating court; respondent entitled to costs.
15 Nov 2010

Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 203
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to take any positive steps to prosecute the appeal after counsel withdrew, did not respond to multiple registry notices and failed to file submissions after a specific warning, such conduct amounted to a clear lack of prosecution justifying dismissal under s161(3)(b) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.