13 Jun 2023
A costs procedural order made by the Tribunal prior to determination of the substantive claim is not an appealable 'determination' under s93; therefore the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal and the appeal was dismissed under r5.49(3).
18 Nov 2021
Because the proposed interveners sought joinder by consent, filed joint memoranda setting out agreed terms, and the Crown did not oppose, the Court exercised its discretion to join Federated Farmers and the Environmental Defence Society as interveners subject to the agreed restrictions.
2 Nov 2020
The court was satisfied, on the material filed, that the proposed settlement orders were consistent with the purposes of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and in the overall interests of the parties, and that the second and third interested parties had no interest; accordingly the court made the draft orders filed with counsel's memorandum.
30 Jun 2020
The appeal was struck out because the appellants persistently failed to comply with the procedural conditions imposed when time was extended and failed to prosecute the appeal with due diligence, justifying strike out under r 44A(1)(a) and (b) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.
12 May 2015
Leave to appeal was refused because the issues relied on were either settled by existing authority (Reekie) or did not raise any question of public or general importance; procedural orders were in the applicant's favour and prior participation by the judge did not amount to disqualification, so the s 13 threshold for granting leave was not met.
28 Mar 2014
Extensions of time were granted and the appeals consolidated because the second judgment was supplementary to and dependent on the first, reservation of leave in the first judgment made immediate appeal unnecessary, the matters are interrelated and should be determined together, and the respondent's asserted prejudice did not justify refusal of the extensions.
19 Oct 2011
The Court set aside the Tribunal's Procedural Order 2 that the six proprietor unit claims were not withdrawn and remitted the questions of withdrawal and the date of commencement for limitation purposes to the Tribunal to be determined on evidence and submissions; costs to lie where they fall.
31 Mar 2011
The first defendant is entitled to costs against the plaintiff on the prescribed scale subject to adjustments and further particularisation (first defendant to file amended assessment); the Court declines to make a Sanderson or Bullock order and directs the plaintiff to pay the first defendant's costs directly; the plaintiff is entitled to a reduced costs award against the second and third defendants limited to $43,200 (to be apportioned equally) unless the plaintiff files an amended costs memorandum by 28 April 2011 and the defendants respond within 14 days; adjustments to awarded disburseme…
7 Dec 2006
Because the liquidator declined personal responsibility and the proceedings were being pursued for a single creditor, the Court exercised its discretion to increase security for costs to protect defendants; additional security of $25,000 for the first defendant and $15,000 for the second defendant was ordered to be paid prior to setting down, and no costs were awarded on this application.