17 Mar 2022
Leave to appeal was refused because none of the statutory criteria in s 74(2) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 were met: the matter did not raise issues of general or public importance or commercial significance and there was no appearance of a substantial miscarriage of justice; the Deputy Registrar and Miller J had correctly applied settled law on security for costs.
23 Jun 2016
Deputy Registrar correctly applied Reekie and other principles, was entitled to find security appropriate given doubts about standing, the appellant's participation in the proceedings, the strength of the appeal, and the need to protect respondents from costs; accordingly the decision refusing to dispense with security is upheld and security of $6,600 is ordered.
4 Mar 2016
Because the Council reinstated the applicant to the Register, there was no longer an extant decision to quash and the judicial review was moot; the applicant's damages claim was hopelessly pleaded, lacked causation and is not a proper remedy in a review proceeding, so the statement of claim was properly struck out under r15.1 High Court Rules.
16 May 2014
The application to recall the 26 March 2014 judgment is dismissed because the circumstances do not meet the Horowhenua County v Nash categories permitting recall; there was no intervening law, no failure by counsel to cite relevant authorities, and no other very special reason warranting revisiting the decision.
30 Jun 2010
The application for recall is dismissed because the statutory and judicially established grounds for recalling a judgment are narrow, no legislative amendment or new authoritative decision affects the judgment, no overlooked legal authority was identified, and the mere fact the judgment does not mention each document does not prove the evidence was not considered.
22 Sept 1999
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to appear and the court applied R.17 of the ARCI Appeals Regulations 1992 to dismiss the appeal.