5 Jul 2023
Under r 4.56 the Court ordered Sergeant Ian Carter struck out as a defendant and the Attorney-General substituted because the plaintiff's allegations against the officer arose from actions in the course of duty, the Attorney-General is the appropriate representative and can provide full redress, and retaining the officer personally would be disproportionate and prejudicial.
29 Nov 2021
The Court ordered the applicants substituted for the deceased plaintiff under rr 4.50 and 4.52 because the executors validly assigned the cause of action to persons with a genuine interest, substitution was necessary and desirable to allow prosecution without duplicative proceedings, and nothing in the Rules precluded the order; the defendants' strike-out applications failed because, although the ex parte litigation guardian application had disclosure deficiencies, that did not justify striking out the substantive claim as an abuse of process at this interlocutory stage.
25 Sept 2020
The plaintiffs were put on notice by the fourth defendant's solicitors and failed to investigate or accept documentary evidence showing the correct corporate entity was Mead Stark Ltd; because the plaintiffs pursued an argument that lacked merit and failed without reasonable justification to accept the facts, the fourth defendant was entitled to costs on the interlocutory application on a 2B basis with a 50% uplift for the unreasonable conduct and separate 2A costs for preparation of submissions on costs; it was inappropriate to treat the interlocutory application as if it were an originating…
2 Jun 2020
The Court substituted Roy Bassett-Burr as the correct appellant because the appeal concerned the costs order made against him; it declined to strike out the appeal because the grounds, while weak, were not frivolous or vexatious on the material before the Court; it ordered Bassett-Burr to pay the filing fee or apply for waiver and to pay security for costs of $7,060 or apply for dispensation, and it removed Quentin Stobart Haines as a respondent while limiting respondents to the two companies awarded costs.
29 Oct 2019
The Court granted leave to appeal, ordered substitution of Synlait Milk Ltd for Stonehill Trustee Ltd by consent, deferred determination of the application to adduce further evidence until the hearing of the appeal, and allowed respondents to file affidavits in response by a specified date.
24 Dec 2018
The Court refused interim relief to restrain the proposed roadworks because, on the material before it, interim restraint was not justified in the context of the arbitration agreement and the undertakings given; the demolition aspect was deferred by the defendants' undertaking until 7 April 2019 and therefore did not require immediate injunctive relief.
4 Oct 2016
The Court proceeded to hear the s66 application dated 9 May 2016 concerning directions for sale of Mount Cook Station and Cox's Downs, confirmed the Public Trustee as substitute applicant, allowed parties who had participated in earlier hearings to be heard on the application, and granted protection for the Public Trustee in respect of costs.
8 Jun 2016
The court declined to award costs because settlement by substitution of parties disposed of the appeal without determining the points of appeal, neither party prevailed, and public policy favours encouraging such pragmatic resolutions; late offers or concessions did not justify an uplift or awarding costs to either side.
3 Dec 2014
The court held the proceeding must be stayed and the application for substitution adjourned until the proposed substitute (Joanna Maria Primrose) obtains and can produce a grant of probate establishing her authority to carry on the deceased applicant's proceedings; without such proof she cannot obtain the relief sought and the stay is necessary under Administration Act s70 and High Court Rules rr4.50-4.52.
23 Aug 2013
Where the proposed substitute applicants' status as creditors was materially contested in concurrent proceedings likely to determine indebtedness, the court should refuse immediate substitution and instead require a formal, evidenced application with a timetable and a defended hearing to determine substitution and related procedural orders.