New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike‑out application

Legal area

Court

23 Jun 2023

BAINS v SINGH [2023] NZHC 1566

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1566
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was granted because two questions of general importance arise: (1) whether the legal test for honest opinion at interlocutory stage requires consideration solely of the pleaded imputations or of the publication as a whole including imputations; and (2) whether the common-law qualified privilege based on duty and interest remains available after Durie v Gardiner or is superseded by RPIC; factual issues including the sect background necessitate trial and preclude strike-out.
1 Jun 2022

DU PREEZ & ANOR v ESTATE OF BARBARA ANNE DOORNEKAMP-WELLMAN & ORS [2022] NZHC 1278

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1278
Court

High Court

The application for appointment of an amicus was declined because the circumstances did not meet the limited exceptional grounds for appointing an amicus; self-represented plaintiffs should seek legal aid where eligible and cannot expect public funds to pay counsel if they have available assets; non-lawyers cannot represent other parties without court leave; alleged inaccuracies in court minutes must be addressed by recall application with affidavit evidence.
29 Mar 2022

PROPERTY SALES DIRECT LTD v HAWKEN LANE DEVELOPMENT LP [2022] NZHC 596

Citation

[2022] NZHC 596
Court

High Court

Granting leave to file the second counterclaim was not an indulgence because the counterclaim was plainly connected to the subject matter of the proceedings and was prompted by a reasons judgment of Katz J delivered 15 June 2021; the defendant successfully opposed the strike-out application and is therefore entitled to costs; interlocutory applications that were consented to by the defendant do not justify costs to the plaintiff; costs are awarded to the defendant on a 2B scale with disbursements totaling $6,245.
10 Dec 2021

CHRISTIAN v BAIN [2021] NZHC 3390

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3390
Court

High Court

On ordinary contractual construction the settlement agreement read as a whole objectively evidenced the parties' intention to reserve the plaintiff's right to continue proceedings against the third defendant; accordingly the release in the settlement did not operate to discharge the third defendant and the strike-out application was dismissed; the court declined to set aside settlement privilege because, given the agreement's clarity, production of without prejudice negotiations would needlessly prolong and delay the proceedings and its probative value was outweighed under s8, though the judg…
13 Sept 2021

HELLABY RESOURCE SERVICES LTD v BODY CORPORATE 197281 [2021] NZHC 2382 _x000b_

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2382
Court

High Court

The application for increased costs was dismissed because, although the strike-out applications had limited practical utility, they were supportable on a technical application of r 5.57(6)(c) and it was not unreasonable for Maynard Marks and HPAL to persist; likewise their refusal of the Body Corporate's offer was not without reasonable justification in the circumstances; accordingly increased costs were not justified, but standard 2B scale costs and specified disbursements were awarded and apportioned equally.
17 Mar 2020

POOL v SUMMERLEE [2020] NZHC 528

Citation

[2020] NZHC 528
Court

High Court

The Court adopted the Court of Appeal's reasoning that Mr Pool did not demonstrate he was an 'incapacitated person' within r 4.29 and therefore there was no basis to appoint a litigation guardian or to appoint counsel or to adjourn proceedings indefinitely; the interlocutory timetable should be maintained with the matter set for mention on 30 April 2020 and the strike-out application to be addressed then unless valid medical evidence justifies a deferral.
4 Mar 2020

Drive NZ Classic Ltd v Low Volume Vehicle Technical Association Incorporated [2020] NZHC 396

Citation

(2020) 25PRNZ 589
Court

High Court

The assignment deed was a principal document within r 8.4(1)(b) because it was used in preparing and finalising the statement of claim; by pleading and relying on the assignment Drive NZ put the document in issue and thereby waived any claim to withhold it under Evidence Act s 65(3); s 56 did not protect the assignment because its dominant purpose was acquisition of rights, not preparation for litigation; the court may order production under r 7.48 for failure to comply with r 8.4; accordingly Drive NZ must produce the assignment deed within 10 working days and pay NZTA costs on a 2B basis.
15 May 2019

HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS [2019] NZHC 1061

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1061
Court

High Court

Strike‑out application dismissed because plaintiff failed to establish s63 was untenable in all circumstances; s63 is a distinct, broader discretionary remedy from the s56(3)(c) due diligence exemption and whether defendants acted honestly and reasonably for s63 must be determined at stage two on full evidence; discovery of existing funding/insurance was declined but any concluded funding or insurance for stage two must be filed confidentially with the Court within five working days of completion.
31 May 2018

LYNNAIRE AVERILL DEIDRE AVERS v NRG REALTY LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1271

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1271
Court

High Court

The defendant's application for costs is dismissed because there are no special reasons under r 14.8 to fix costs at this stage, wasted costs are not justified on the evidence, and it is premature to determine entitlement to costs under r 7.77(8); both parties share responsibility for the timing of the amended pleading.
17 Apr 2018

ILES v TE WHENUA [2018] NZHC 695

Citation

[2018] NZHC 695
Court

High Court

The application to transfer was declined because, on the material before the Court, a material part of the cause of action (including matters connected to a consent memorandum arising from a Wellington settlement conference and a complaint to the Wellington District Law Society) was nearer to the plaintiff's residence in Wellington than to the defendants' residences; accordingly Wellington is the proper registry under r 5.1 and transfer to Rotorua is not justified.