New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prospects of success

Legal area

Court

7 Apr 2017

WALLACE v LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER [2017] NZCA 114

Citation

[2017] NZCA 114
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the appeal was moot: the amended statement of claim materially differed from the claim the Tribunal had considered, meaning the Commissioner and Tribunal must be allowed to reassess the clarified claim against the statutory legal aid criteria; the issues were case-specific and not of sufficient general or public importance to justify a second appeal, and there was no evidence a fresh application would be mishandled.
23 May 2016

BOURNEVILLE v LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER [2016] NZHC 1079

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1079
Court

High Court

Applicants lacked standing because their primary purpose was collateral and tactical (to cut off funding and end the underlying litigation); alternatively the claim was strike‑out‑worthy on that basis. On the merits the Commissioner did not commit a reviewable error in granting legal aid or in declining to withdraw it because the decision followed specialist advice, valid application of the 'special circumstances' discretion (complexity, likely cost, inability to self‑fund), and reasonable reliance on the Court of Appeal's assessment of prospects of success; discretionary relief would neverth…
21 May 2015

RABSON AND CRESER v TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2015] NZCA 188

Citation

[2015] NZCA 188
Court

Court of Appeal

The Deputy Registrar correctly refused to dispense with security because the appellants failed to demonstrate impecuniosity or exceptional public interest, had unpaid costs, and the appeal had low prospects of success given the High Court's findings and the Reekie test; accordingly security of $5,880 was required.
14 Jul 2014

RAFIQ V GOOGLE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED CA174/2014 [2014] NZCA 320

Citation

[2014] NZCA 320
Court

Court of Appeal

The Registrar did not err: impecuniosity alone is insufficient and there were no exceptional circumstances to waive security; the appeal has no real prospect of success; therefore the application to dispense with security for costs is dismissed and security of $5,880 is ordered.
10 Apr 2014

RAFIQ v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT CA116/2013 [2014] NZCA 137

Citation

[2014] NZCA 137
Court

Court of Appeal

The Registrar did not err: impecuniosity alone does not justify dispensing with security for costs, no exceptional circumstances or public importance were established, and the appeal lacks merit/prospects of success; therefore security for costs of $5,880 is required.
24 Apr 2012

WANG V WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED COA CA836/2011

Citation

COA CA836/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success and raised no issue of public importance: the applicant had no evidential foundation to show loss caused by the bank's sale attempts, she had expressly sought the bank's intervention and was in default so the bank was lawfully entitled to act under s119, and the substituted service argument was irrelevant given the bank did not complete a sale.
8 Nov 2011

M (CA587/2011) V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION COA CA587/2011

Citation

COA CA587/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The review is dismissed and security is fixed at $2,780 because the appeal has little prospect of success, raises no significant public interest to justify waiver, and the appellant's financial position warrants a half reduction of the normal security amount.
13 Aug 2010

SKELTON V R SC 32/2010

Citation

SC 32/2010
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed appeal did not have any prospect of succeeding; the Court applied the same reasons given in Headley and refused leave.
1 Oct 2009

VIACOM GLOBAL (NETHERLANDS) B.V. V SCENE 1 ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) AND ANOR CA CA600/2009

Citation

openlaw-c49b6f35_5ae3_4086_b6ef_f471046c4c46.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The stay application was dismissed because the applicant failed to satisfy the established criteria for a stay pending appeal—in particular insufficiently demonstrated prospects of success and the balance of convenience and receivership considerations weighed against granting a stay.
15 Dec 2008

LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY V ANDERSON HC WN CIV-2008-404-5206

Citation

openlaw-dfb52ca3_1116_4243_9788_fcc08ddd65d5.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held that Justice Venning's strike-out judgment together with the filing of the amended statement of claim constituted a change in circumstances capable of throwing new light on the aided person's prospects of success, thereby entitling the Agency to reassess and potentially withdraw legal aid under s26(2)(a) and related provisions; the Panel erred in law in concluding those events were not a sufficient basis for review. The further conclusion was that the respondent's subsequent satisfactory attendance at another mainstream school was a relevant factor to the Agency's assessme…