New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Trial scheduling

Legal area

Court

27 Jun 2022

HURITU AND OTHERS v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 1500

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1500
Court

High Court

The adjournment was granted because, on balance, the interests of justice required vacating the September 2022 three-week fixture: pleadings and discovery were not settled or complete, the civil proceedings risked prejudicing the plaintiffs' parallel criminal trials and vice versa, the nominated September claims were not truly representative and would not dispose of the litigation leading to inefficiency and risk of inconsistent decisions, and the plaintiffs' claims for past damages were not sufficiently urgent to outweigh these considerations.
17 Jun 2022

R v BENBOW [2022] NZHC 1355

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1355
Court

High Court

The adjournment was granted because the medical incapacity of two key defence counsel created an unavoidable risk that the defendant could not receive a fair trial if the matter proceeded on the scheduled date; that preservation of fair trial rights outweighed the Crown's prejudice concerns, and suppression of the adjournment decision and limited medical details was justified to protect privacy and allow notification of affected parties.
27 Sept 2021

JOHNSON v JOHNSON [2021] NZHC 2540

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2540
Court

High Court

The adjournment was declined because the core evidence was already filed and the remaining work was largely administrative collation or manageable expert briefing; counsel withdrawal alone (without detailed affidavit evidence of inability to prepare) did not justify vacating a fixture set over a year earlier; the prejudice and delay to other parties and the public interest in finality outweighed the applicant's claim of unfairness, and practical measures (handover by withdrawn counsel, timetable adjustments) could preserve a fair hearing.
21 May 2020

CAPITAL AND COAST DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD v BECA CARTER HOLLINGS & FERNER LTD [2020] NZHC 1083

Citation

CAPITAL AND COAST DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD v BECA CARTER HOLLINGS & FERNER LTD [2020] NZHC 1083
Court

High Court

Adjournment was granted but limited to a four week postponement (trial move from 14 September 2020 to 12 October 2020) because the interests of justice required a short additional period for experts to prepare while avoiding loss of the allocated multi-week trial slot and further delay into 2021; the Court found remote and alternative measures available, plaintiff's lateness was regrettable but insufficient to justify a longer adjournment, and parties must use technology and cooperate to mitigate pandemic effects.
12 Dec 2019

BODY CORPORATE 368533 v NAPIER CITY COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 3270

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3270
Court

High Court

The plaintiff's material slippage in serving expert evidence, the late and inaccessible documentary material, the consequent prejudice to defendants' experts' ability to prepare and confer (exacerbated by holiday periods and existing commitments), and the material increase in claimed quantum meant the defendants could not be properly ready for the May 2020 trial; accordingly, in the interests of justice the trial fixture was vacated and adjourned to commence 21 September 2020 for 10 weeks with a directions timetable and case management review.
19 Jul 2019

BIGGS v BIGGS [2019] NZHC 1705

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1705
Court

High Court

The Court ordered the hearing be transferred to Auckland because, on balance, convenience for counsel and primary witnesses and the greater flexibility of judicial resources in Auckland outweighed the value of the current Judge's interlocutory familiarity; the Court directed specific case management steps including allocation of a three-week trial period and deadlines for amended pleadings.
27 May 2019

SHANGHAI NEUHOF TRADE CO LTD v ZESPRI INTERNATIONAL LTD [2019] NZHC 1176

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1176
Court

High Court

On balance the court will grant a limited adjournment: the unavailability of the plaintiffs' critical witness imprisoned in China justified vacating the 1 July 2019 fixture and relisting for specified dates in 2020 because, despite the plaintiffs' delay in taking all practicable steps, the prejudice of proceeding without the witness outweighed the prejudice of a modest delay to the defendant; the adjournment is granted on terms and the court will not fetter its future discretion to require the trial to proceed if the witness remains unavailable.
19 Aug 2016

CYGNET FARMS LTD v ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LTD [2016] NZHC 1945

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1945
Court

High Court

Applying r10.2 the court balanced the plaintiff's strong interest in timely resolution, the public interest in efficient court use and the speculative benefit to others of further discovery, accepted the plaintiff's undertaking as adequate protection, and declined ANZ's adjournment application so the trial could proceed as scheduled.
27 Apr 2016

EASTON v THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED [2016] NZHC 798

Citation

[2016] NZHC 798
Court

High Court

The application to amend was refused because the proposed amendments raised new and discrete matters that conflicted with existing pleadings, were insufficiently particularised, would likely require further discovery and additional evidence and hearing time thus prejudicing the defendant and risking the trial timetable, and the plaintiff provided no satisfactory explanation for the lateness; accordingly the requirements of justice, absence of prejudice and no significant delay were not met.
3 Dec 2015

THE QUEEN v TU [2015] NZHC 3045

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3045
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities there is sufficient evidence to put the defendant on trial; on expert evidence the defendant is mentally impaired but fit to stand trial; no pre-trial finding of insanity is made because the Crown does not agree that the only reasonable verdict is not guilty by reason of insanity; interim name suppression is not renewed.