8 Nov 2022
Although the plaintiff was overall successful in securing protection against enforcement of the trespass notices, it pursued additional substantive interlocutory relief and failed; that pursuit increased costs and, applying r 14.7(d) High Court Rules 2016, the appropriate order is that costs lie where they fall.
1 Jul 2021
The application for interim injunction was dismissed because G&L failed to establish a serious question to be tried on equitable estoppel: there was no clear representation by GAS that a new headlease and sublease would be granted, no reasonable reliance established, the contractual documents expressly provided for expiry and termination, damages were an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience and commercial certainty favored GAS.
23 Oct 2018
The application was struck out because it disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action, was speculative and unsupported by evidence, was inconsistent with the applicant's guilty plea and discharge, and constituted an abuse of process as an improper collateral attack on a concluded prosecution; additionally, injunctive relief against the Crown was not available.
18 Aug 2017
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal had correctly found no error warranting further appeal, the refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal is final under s 213(3) Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and no exceptional circumstances existed to justify a direct leap‑frog appeal from the High Court.
23 Mar 2017
Leave to bring the second appeals was refused because the matters raised did not involve general or public importance and there was no miscarriage of justice: the trespass notices were validly issued, the refusal to issue witness summonses did not deny fair trial rights, and the sentences were not excessive.
9 Sept 2015
The application for special leave was dismissed because the proposed grounds did not raise a question of law appropriate for consideration by this Court under s124(3); a Privacy Act breach does not by itself constitute a Human Rights Act breach; and the applicant's challenges were predominantly factual matters decided by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court and therefore not proper subjects for special leave.
6 Mar 2015
Leave to appeal was refused because the contested matters were either factual determinations or not questions of law capable of bona fide and serious argument and did not raise issues of sufficient general or public importance; specifically, Privacy Act victimisation is not actionable under s66 HRA and the Tribunal's conclusions on link and intent were reasonable on the evidence.
25 Feb 2015
The Court found Hortiventure had not waived its contractual arbitration right, was asserting bona fide disputes over the PLA notice, and had not taken a disqualifying step in the proceedings by serving the trespass notice; accordingly under art 8(1) the High Court must stay the proceedings and refer the dispute to arbitration and it was appropriate to refer directly to arbitration and provide for appointment of a single arbitrator by the President of the NZ Law Society if the parties could not agree.
8 Mar 2007
The Branch Manager's letter was not a 'decision' under s6 of the Act; consequently the Reviewer's refusal to review for lack of jurisdiction was correct and the District Court must dismiss the appeal for want of a reviewable decision.