4 Nov 2011
HADEN V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC WN CIV-2010-485-002380
- Citation
- openlaw-c5c28061_640a_4161_b085_df5028980594.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The Court dismissed the defendants' r10.15 application because the proposed separate question would create difficult demarcation and evidential overlap, would not dispose of the proceeding, offered no clear net time saving, and risked protraction and inefficiency; the strike-out application against the Council was dismissed because factual issues (notably purchaser knowledge/notice under Counties Manukau) and defective but amendable pleadings meant summary dismissal was inappropriate; plaintiff given leave to amend the statement of claim within 28 days.