7 Dec 2023
Section 163 does not authorise an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the High Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal because such a refusal is not a 'determination or decision... on the appeal'; accordingly the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
31 Oct 2023
Section 261 (and consequently s266(1)) does not have extraterritorial effect as against persons who are not current or former directors of a New Zealand company in liquidation; on that basis the Court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the liquidators' s261 notices against Arena and Queastor (foreign shareholder/secured creditor), and the liquidators' application to set aside the respondents' appearance is dismissed.
30 Oct 2023
Notices under s98 were validly issued and served; the Commission met its low relevance/necessity threshold; the appellant deliberately and completely failed to comply without a reasonable excuse (directors' duties do not excuse non-compliance); prosecution proved charges beyond reasonable doubt; sentencing reduction from $30,000 to $3,000 for impecuniosity was within discretion despite a minor factual error about benefit figures.
18 Oct 2023
The Concession does not limit extraction to 1.2 cumecs because its plain wording authorises taking of water without a volumetric cap, the Concession's conditions address hydrological protection by imposing a residual-flow cease-take mechanism with monitoring (conditions 8 and 9), the delegate had discretion and chose that mechanism rather than a fixed volumetric limit, water allocation is addressed by RMA resource consents, and the criteria for implying a term imposing a volumetric limit are not satisfied.
9 Oct 2023
The Court cannot grant the mandatory order because doing so would effectively suspend and override clear statutory deadlines in the Electoral Act; the Commission's refusal to accept a party list after noon on 14 September 2023 is a matter of statutory requirement not an exercise of a discretionary statutory power amenable to judicial review; s 146H does not permit curing omissions to a party list and s 128C does not permit resubmission beyond the s 127 deadline; s 12(b) BORA is not engaged on the pleaded facts.
11 Sept 2023
Section 139 must be read as authorising certification only of activities that comply with the district plan as described in the plan; it does not allow issuance of certificates of compliance to validate existing uses that contravene plan rules under s10, and the council's 1999 certificates were unlawfully issued and are set aside.
11 Sept 2023
Application dismissed because the Court was not satisfied the distribution deed was reasonably necessary for the applicants to enforce the Trust: their contingent interests have been effectively extinguished, significant delay undermines the utility of disclosure, no convincing confidentiality concern was shown, and disclosure would not alter the present position; therefore disclosure was not required under ss 52–53 of the Trusts Act 2019.
1 Sept 2023
The application for leave to appeal was refused because it was not reasonably arguable that the Court of Appeal decision could be interpreted in the narrow way advanced by Red Stag; the High Court had correctly implemented the Court of Appeal's direction about pleadings, the issues had been adjudicated by the Court of Appeal and this Court, and the high threshold for leave was not met because granting leave would cause further delay and was not in the interests of justice.
28 Aug 2023
The guarantee was an all‑obligations commercial guarantee and s 9C CCCFA did not apply because the lending was not consumer credit; Heartland had no continuing contractual or statutory duty to notify Burton of overdraft limit increases beyond relying on the borrower and its authorised director to agree variations; Burton, as director and informed guarantor, had means and responsibility to monitor company finances; plaintiff established there was no real defence and summary judgment was appropriate.
11 Aug 2023
Section 46(1)(b) does not bar conviction on the s32(1)(b) zero‑licence charge because the facts making each offence punishable were materially different: one required proof that breath alcohol exceeded 400 micrograms per litre, the other required proof the driver held a zero alcohol licence and drove with alcohol present. The CPA requires substantial factual identity (often expressed as a common punishable act) to trigger the plea; that threshold was not met here, so dual convictions were lawful.