New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory limitation

Legal area

Court

27 Sept 2022

PAUL v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZCA 443

Citation

[2022] NZCA 443
Court

Court of Appeal

The nationwide application was struck out because it failed to meet mandatory s 101 requirements by not identifying the applicant iwi/hapū/whānau, by claiming the entire marine and coastal area rather than a particular area, and by not naming a proposed holder; objectively it was a protective device designed to circumvent the mandatory six-year statutory deadline in s 100(2) and therefore constituted an abuse of process; the subsequent amended claims that introduced new applicants constituted time-barred new claims and were also abusive, so the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirme…
1 May 2020

AGRICOLA ENTERPRISES LTD AND JOSEPH MICHAEL MCDONALD v MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2020] NZCA 136

Citation

[2020] NZCA 136
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court declined leave because the expert veterinary evidence was admissible and appropriately qualified and the factual findings of the trial judge, as upheld by Duffy J, meant there was no real risk of miscarriage of justice or question of general public importance warranting a second appeal.
21 Nov 2018

MALAWEERA v ALLIANZ NEW ZEALAND LTD [2018] NZCA 514

Citation

[2018] NZCA 514
Court

Court of Appeal

The Registrar correctly declined to accept the application for an extension of time because the statutory scheme (s 165) confines appeals to questions of law which were not identified and the application was grossly out of time in any event, compounded by prior procedural strike out, so the review application must be declined.
19 Jun 2017

MAXWELL v CRAIG [2017] NZHC 1151

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1151
Court

High Court

The notice of claim was removed because the applicant failed to commence substantive proceedings within the statutory three‑year limitation period after the relationship ended, her evidence that the de facto relationship continued after 1 February 2002 was weak and, given the substantial and unexplained delay, maintaining the notice caused prejudice to the respondent making removal appropriate.
11 Dec 2015

GB & ORS v WLS [2015] NZHC 3176

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3176
Court

High Court

The Limitation Act 1950 as amended by the Limitation Act 2010 does not preclude the High Court exercising its common law/inherent jurisdiction (and Rule 15) to strike out or stay proceedings on grounds that prejudice from delay prevents a fair trial; accordingly defendants may bring an interlocutory strike out/stay application and the court must decide whether to entertain it before trial, with merits to be determined at a listed hearing.
13 Nov 2013

INBOUND v INLAND REVENUE [2013] NZHC 3004

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3004
Court

High Court

The Court held the Limitation Act 1950 did not govern the GST refund claim; the relevant limitation framework was contained in the Tax Administration Act and GST Act (s163 and s45). The Commissioner complied with s46 by giving notice to the taxpayer's authorised agent within the prescribed period and therefore did not breach s46. The agreed adjustments signed in September 2001 were valid settlements that precluded further challenge by the plaintiff, the TAMP Act savings provision did not apply to these facts, and the plaintiff's judicial review grounds failed on merit; leave was granted to am…
12 Mar 2008

KAHN V KAHN & ANOR HC WN CIV-2007-485-1772

Citation

openlaw-83ea7678_0d1e_4254_a60c_5f1e8636562f.pdf
Court

High Court

The court found the estate had not been finally distributed because the Will's Special Trust remained undetermined: transferring the share portfolio to a company constituted an investment by the trustees, not a distribution to beneficiaries; s 2(4) confirms trust assets held by trustees are not deemed distributed; accordingly s 9(1) proviso did not bar the Intended Plaintiff from applying for an extension of time.
10 Aug 2006

NEW TIMES MEDIA LIMITED AND ORS V CHINESE HERALD LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2001-404-002027

Citation

openlaw-53f4db01_a34a_474d_a1b1_b4dce7674f63.pdf
Court

High Court

Proceedings were struck out because there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay with no step taken within 12 months preceding the defendants' application, s 50 of the Defamation Act 1992 directed striking out absent discretionary reasons to the contrary, and the interests of justice favoured strike out given prejudice and the public interest in timely litigation.