New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedure

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2021

LOGAN AND NG v MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION [2021] NZHC 945

Citation

[2021] NZHC 945
Court

High Court

An interim declaration was granted under s15(3)(b) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 that the Crown ought to consider the Proclamation stayed and not take further consequential action (including Registrar-General steps under s105) because such relief was reasonably necessary to preserve the applicants' position and third-party interests pending a substantive hearing given the imminent vesting and an arguable challenge.
26 May 2020

HAINES HOUSE HAULAGE NORTHLAND LTD v WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 1122

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1122
Court

High Court

Costs were awarded to the appellant. Ms Waldron, who actively opposed the appeal, must pay 80% of the allowed costs; the Council, which appeared, made substantive submissions and did more than abide the result but acted neutrally, must pay 20%. The presence of the house on Lot 1 and errors by the Environment Court did not disentitle the successful appellant to costs nor justify refusal or reduction of costs in this Court.
8 Oct 2019

BAIGENT v TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 2551

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2551
Court

High Court

Because the appellant did not file opposition within the extended time, the matter was properly categorised as 2B, and the respondent's claim complied with the High Court Rules and disclosed reasonable disbursements, the Court awarded costs and disbursements of $11,285.67 to the respondent.
21 Aug 2015

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v SARSFIELD [2015] NZHC 1990

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1990
Court

High Court

The Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities, based on uncontested evidence and the respondents' admissions, that the cash and vehicles were tainted property under s5; accordingly, under the mandatory provision of s50 the Court must and did make assets forfeiture orders vesting the property in the Crown and placing it in the Official Assignee's custody and control.
20 Jul 2011

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V MOTOR DEALERS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2010-404-000331

Citation

openlaw-983ab656_febf_4044_94fd_f765f6b4c1bb.pdf
Court

High Court

The Associate Judge declined to grant the substantive stay but refused to strike out MDL's applications; he adjourned the stay applications and ordered that they be dismissed on 26 August 2011 unless MDL filed and served an application for interim relief under s8 of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 by 19 August 2011; costs reserved. The appropriate route for challenging refusal of late objections is judicial review in the Review Court, and parties seeking to delay insolvency enforcement must obtain interim relief from that Court rather than expect Associate Judges to suspend commercial proce…
16 Aug 2007

RADISICH V TAYLOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-3276

Citation

openlaw-7a34bb5f_33db_4992_a49e_2fab564c7321.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion to adjourn the scheduled substantive hearing because the respondent's counsel could not be properly prepared to meet the appellant's reply submissions; the matter was to be relisted as a one‑day fixture and costs were reserved to the Judge who will hear the substantive matter.
20 Jun 2007

AUCKLAND YACHT & BOATING ASSN V WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL & ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-007598

Citation

openlaw-e6d30acd_b1e0_4b50_be92_567e51997b1f.pdf
Court

High Court

The s303 application was denied because CMFA failed to demonstrate that the additional documents were necessary for a proper determination of the points of law; the Environment Court's decision and the definitive versions of Variation 3 and rule 16.5.3 produced are sufficient to decide the issues on the appeal, while the High Court retains the power to order further material if it later proves necessary.
17 Apr 2007

Guy v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 75
Court

District Court

The court accepted the appellant's request and recorded that the appeal is withdrawn.
- Appeal withdrawal
- Procedure
10 Oct 2003

Pelasio v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 264
Court

District Court

Because the appellant and his counsel effectively abandoned prosecution of the appeal—counsel withdrew and the appellant failed to respond to multiple Registry requests—the court was justified in striking out the appeal for want of prosecution.