New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Relief from sanctions

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 2023

MAHASIVAM v THURAISINGHAM [2023] NZHC 3418

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3418
Court

High Court

The defendant complied with Davison J's unless order by filing an affidavit of documents and producing documents by the specified deadline (3 August 2023); adequacy disputes do not equate to non-compliance warranting automatic strike-out; striking out the defence would be disproportionate and, if there had been breach, relief should be granted given absence of prior history of non-compliance, a credible defence and ongoing disclosure; accordingly the statement of defence is not struck out and relief is granted if required.
21 Nov 2023

MITCHELL v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZHC 3305

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3305
Court

High Court

The appeal was filed and served outside the 22-working-day period in s 123(4); by authority of Attorney-General v Howard and subsequent NZ decisions the statutory 22-working-day limit is mandatory and non-extendable by the Court, so the application for extension of time is dismissed; suppression orders from the Tribunal are replicated on the High Court file.
2 Aug 2022

HUNTER v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 1890

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1890
Court

High Court

The unless order operated automatically upon non‑compliance; because no formal application for relief was made in the District Court supported by evidence the High Court lacked jurisdiction to overturn the automatic dismissal and could not exercise residual discretion on a purported appeal; therefore the appeal must be dismissed.
10 Nov 2021

WITHERS v THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [2021] NZHC 3046

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3046
Court

High Court

The appellant was not entitled to relief from the consequences of the unless order because he had repeatedly defaulted, the unless order was clear and proportionate, the breaches were attributable to him, and the public interest and prejudice to the respondent outweighed any injustice to the appellant; accordingly the application for relief was declined and the sanction of the unless order (striking out) must stand.
6 May 2021

HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS & ORS [2021] NZSC 38

Citation

[2021] NZSC 38
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the legal test for relief from unless orders was not in dispute, the Court of Appeal's factual assessment that the applicant's various proposals for security were inadequate was justified and not suitable for re-litigation on leave, and the applicant failed to show a substantial miscarriage of justice; public interest and prejudice to respondents weighed against granting leave.
11 Dec 2020

HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS [2020] NZCA 638

Citation

[2020] NZCA 638
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court's unless order and subsequent refusal to stay: the claimants had a long history of default by their funder, no adequate or acceptable security for costs was in place despite multiple opportunities and proposals, there was no material change in circumstances warranting relief, and public interest and prejudice to respondents justified striking out the proceeding for non-compliance.
17 Oct 2018

HULJICH v HULJICH & ORS [2018] NZHC 2682

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2682
Court

High Court

Indemnity costs were appropriate under r14.6(4)(a) and (b) because the plaintiff repeatedly ignored court directions and caused unnecessary interlocutory steps; quantum reduced because two senior counsel were unnecessary for interlocutory work, resulting in an award of indemnity costs of NZD 83,681.18, payable within 20 working days or the plaintiff's claim will be struck out.
23 Nov 2016

CLAYTON v CURRIE [2016] NZHC 2815

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2815
Court

High Court

The Judge exercised discretion to grant relief from the consequences of non-compliance for the first plaintiff (V J Clayton) because, on balance, his late discovery amounted to muddlement rather than deliberate flouting and relevant documents are now before the parties; for the remaining plaintiffs the Court ordered limited relief only and struck out each plaintiff's claim for special damages because their discovery and particularisation obligations for those heads of loss were not satisfied within the timetabled orders; the balance of their claims was preserved to avoid disproportionate inju…
8 Aug 2014

TANKERSLEY v MEROITI [2014] NZHC 1874

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1874
Court

High Court

The defendants materially failed to comply with the clear, objectively measurable requirements of the unless order by not disclosing identified bank accounts and required supporting documents to trace sale proceeds; their thereafter belated disclosures evidenced non-compliance rather than excused it; relief from the automatic sanction was refused and, as specified in the unless order, the first and fifth defendants are debarred from defending the proceedings.
21 Nov 2006

ORIX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V MILNE AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-004394

Citation

openlaw-4cc076fc_970b_4383_a283_066d0e5c955e.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court set aside the judgment entered against the first defendant because the late service was trivial (27 minutes), there was a credible uncontrollable explanation (traffic delay), the defendant took reasonable steps to comply and there was no real prejudice to the third party; the first defendant's claim against the third party was reinstated and costs awarded to the first defendant against the third party on Category 2 Band B.