New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Timetable and directions

Legal area

Court

5 Nov 2021

DELIU v THE NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2021] NZHC 2990

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2990
Court

High Court

The judge refused recusal because no demonstrated real possibility of bias; appointed the New Zealand Law Society as contradictor to ensure adversarial testing because that role aligns with its statutory regulatory functions and does not present a disqualifying conflict; ordered limited disclosure of Tribunal records relevant to the panel appointments by a set date and directed timetable steps and a further court call.
20 Feb 2017

ROBINSON v WHANGAREI HEADS ENTERPRISES LIMITED [2017] NZHC 206

Citation

[2017] NZHC 206
Court

High Court

The plaintiff, a litigant in person, is not entitled to an award of costs for the review application absent extraordinary circumstances; his refined discovery request on review and limited voluntary disclosure by defendants does not negate the Associate Judge's earlier finding that the original application was deficient, so the Associate Judge's costs award stands and will not be set aside.
7 Mar 2013

ASPEC CONSTRUCTION WELLINGTON LIMITED V DELTA DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED HC WN CIV-2012-485-2735

Citation

openlaw-d4c3b068_6a01_46ae_b399_331191b45ca0.pdf
Court

High Court

The arbitrator's refusal of further extension was reasonable given Delta's repeated failure to comply with the timetable, lack of adequate and timely explanation or evidence of why compliance was impossible, and offers made by the arbitrator to mitigate prejudice; no breach of natural justice occurred and therefore the awards should not be set aside and may be entered as judgment.
16 Dec 2009

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PTY LIMITED AND ANOR V PRIMARY DISTRIBUTORS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2006-404-4695

Citation

openlaw-fd27455a_5961_42a3_8557_c3ec9354eb0a.pdf
Court

High Court

Because entitlement to an account of profits had already been established and the account hearing requires full evidence and oral testimony, the court refused a separate preliminary hearing as disproportionate and potentially wasteful; further discovery from plaintiffs was declined as marginally relevant and disproportionate given the modest sums at issue; defendants were ordered to provide specified discovery and file detailed briefs and submissions on a set timetable and all substantive issues will be determined at the single account of profits hearing.
8 Sept 2006

HODGSON AND ANOR V SIEMER AND ORS HC AK CIV 2005-404-1808

Citation

openlaw-cc7b059c_23b6_4e2f_bde8_e406e076506e.pdf
Court

High Court

The court dismissed the defendants' application to determine termination of the 2001 agreement as inappropriate for r 418 and for separate trial, ordered that the question whether the published words are capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meanings be determined as a preliminary issue (making the orders sought in paras 2,3,4,5 and 7), refused to vary the interim injunction to allow reinstatement of the billboard because the defendant had breached the injunction and had not purged contempt (outstanding costs), and made timetable directions and a partial costs award to the plaintiffs (50%…

New Zealand Case Law

DELIU v THE NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2021] NZHC 2990

ROBINSON v WHANGAREI HEADS ENTERPRISES LIMITED [2017] NZHC 206

ASPEC CONSTRUCTION WELLINGTON LIMITED V DELTA DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED HC WN CIV-2012-485-2735

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PTY LIMITED AND ANOR V PRIMARY DISTRIBUTORS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2006-404-4695

HODGSON AND ANOR V SIEMER AND ORS HC AK CIV 2005-404-1808