New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Waiver of security

Legal area

Court

29 Mar 2019

ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 644

Citation

[2019] NZHC 644
Court

High Court

Appellant did not prove impecuniosity and no exceptional circumstances justified a full waiver; one ground of appeal raised genuine public interest such that security would be inappropriate for that part, but the remaining grounds were not of public interest and could attract costs; therefore standard security was reduced by 50% and ordered in the sum of $2,230 to balance interests; s126 panel not required to determine this preliminary matter.
2 Aug 2016

TE WHARE O TE KAITIAKI NGAHERE INC v WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL & ORS [2016] NZHC 1782

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1782
Court

High Court

Waiver of security for costs was declined because the appellant failed to prove impecuniosity, had a history of unpaid costs, the appeal raised no public interest sufficient to overcome the presumption, and a reasonable solvent litigant would not pursue the appeal; security of $1,672.50 was ordered.
14 Oct 2014

M v L CA304/2014 [2014] NZCA 503

Citation

[2014] NZCA 503
Court

Court of Appeal

The Registrar's refusal to waive security for costs was upheld because the appeal lacked merit and judicial review would not automatically set aside the protection order or convictions; security was reduced to $2,940 as a concession to the applicant's means but remains payable to protect respondents' interests; an extension of time to file the case on appeal and apply for a hearing date was granted to 20 November 2014.
6 Oct 2014

ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE OF NEW ZEALAND v WELLS, HOADLEY and COUTTS [2014] NZHC 2441

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2441
Court

High Court

The onus was on the appellant to establish that the interests of justice required waiver of security and that the court should depart from the general rule requiring lawyer representation for corporations. The appellant did not meet that onus. Given the appellant's and Mrs Haden's litigation history, prior adverse determinations, the Institute's substantive connection to Mrs Haden, and the weak prospects of success, the Court declined to exercise its discretions to waive security or permit lay representation and ordered security in an increased sum to protect respondents.
12 Mar 2014

B V WAITEMATA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD CA524/2013 [2014] NZCA 65

Citation

[2014] NZCA 65
Court

Court of Appeal

Registrar's decision to require security was upheld on review because the appellant did not establish impecuniosity in the relevant sense and the appeal could not be characterised as hopeless; however, because the case raised broader public interest, the quantum of security was reduced from $5,880 to $3,000, payable by a specified date.
25 Feb 2014

GOODWIN v COPLAND CA195/2013 [2014] NZCA 33

Citation

[2014] NZCA 33
Court

Court of Appeal

The review is dismissed because the Registrar was entitled to require security for costs; impecuniosity alone does not justify waiver and no exceptional circumstances or public importance were shown to displace the usual rule, so security of $5,880 was ordered to protect the respondent's interests.
20 Feb 2014

MAWHINNEY V REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND AND NAGS HEAD HORSE HOTEL LIMITED CA477/2013 [2014] NZCA 22

Citation

[2014] NZCA 22
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time was refused because the applicant provided no adequate explanation or affidavit for the four-month delay, the Registrar's decision did not disclose obvious error nor exceptional circumstances warranting waiver of security for costs, and the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the purported appeal which should have been pursued by review in the High Court.
17 Feb 2014

BOSWELL V MILLAR CA293/2013 [2014] NZCA 18

Citation

[2014] NZCA 18
Court

Court of Appeal

Registrar's refusal to dispense with security was upheld because the appellant did not demonstrate impecuniosity in the relevant sense given disclosed property equity sufficient to raise the required sum, the appeal did not raise issues of public importance and its merits were weak, and security was necessary to protect the respondent.
6 May 2013

REEKIE v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SUED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) COA CA532/2012

Citation

COA CA532/2012
Court

Court of Appeal

Registrar's refusal to waive security was correct because the applicant produced no evidence of exceptional circumstances; impecuniosity alone does not justify waiver; the appeal did not raise issues of public importance or legal principle and had little prospect of success, therefore security of $5,880 was properly required.
11 Apr 2013

ORLOV V THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE (NO 1) & ORS COA CA737/2012

Citation

COA CA737/2012
Court

Court of Appeal

The Registrar's decision refusing to waive or vary security for costs was correct: the applicant produced no evidence of impecuniosity or exceptional circumstances to justify waiver or reduction, respondents are entitled to protection for costs, and the applicant must pay security of $5,880 within 20 working days.