New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Witness availability

Legal area

Court

21 Dec 2022

SINGH v R [2022] NZCA 644

Citation

[2022] NZCA 644
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court declined to award costs because the successful appeal, even with a Crown concession of miscarriage of justice based on judicial misdirection, did not constitute the type of 'out of the ordinary' circumstances required to exercise the s 8 discretion in favour of the appellant; the retrial was aborted due to the complainant's unavailability for personal reasons unrelated to prosecutorial fault, and ordinary criminal appeals are most unlikely to attract costs orders.
16 Oct 2019

NAPIER CITY COUNCIL v LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUTUAL FUNDS TRUSTEE LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2643

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2643
Court

High Court

The adjournment was warranted because the pre-trial timetable had not been complied with, the recent Court of Appeal decision raised substantive and procedural issues necessitating clarification (including possible amendment of pleadings and further discovery), key witnesses were unavailable, and the interests of justice and efficient use of trial time required additional pre-trial management; accordingly the existing fixture was vacated and further case management directions ordered.
22 Nov 2017

SOTANA v VONGLA [2017] NZHC 2870

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2870
Court

High Court

The mother's affidavit was not fresh because it was available with reasonable diligence before she left New Zealand; the affidavit was not sufficiently cogent or materially supportive of the appellant's competing factual accounts (and photographic evidence supported the respondent's gift narrative); the appellant had elected not to adjourn at first instance and could have obtained the evidence earlier; on balance admitting the affidavit would risk relitigation and was not in the interests of justice, so the application to admit the evidence is dismissed.
23 Feb 2016

APN HOLDINGS NZ LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZHC 244

Citation

[2016] NZHC 244
Court

High Court

Judge accepted plaintiffs could not meaningfully brief their principal witness on subpoenaed RBS documents before trial, the documents were highly relevant to objective purpose and effect, and responsible opening could not occur without adequate briefing; the Commissioner's delay in obtaining the subpoena contributed to the prejudice; on balance the interests of justice required granting an adjournment and specific timetable orders were made.
6 Jul 2015

CASE v THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 1559

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1559
Court

High Court

The application to adjourn was dismissed because counsel had mutually agreed an amended timetable (plaintiffs to serve briefs by 24 July 2015), the defendant failed to demonstrate an inability to present the expert's evidence by alternative means, and the expert's overseas unavailability did not justify postponement given viable alternatives (video link/skype or deferral of that witness's evidence shortly after his return) and the substantial prejudice and delay the plaintiffs would suffer from further adjournment.
11 May 2015

HISLOP v HISLOP [2015] NZHC 989

Citation

[2015] NZHC 989
Court

High Court

The fixture was vacated because the defendant's case was not adequately prepared for trial and two witnesses who are fundamental to the defendant's case were unavailable on short notice; the interests of justice required adjournment with strict timetable and costs against the defendant.

New Zealand Case Law

SINGH v R [2022] NZCA 644

NAPIER CITY COUNCIL v LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUTUAL FUNDS TRUSTEE LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2643

SOTANA v VONGLA [2017] NZHC 2870

APN HOLDINGS NZ LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZHC 244

CASE v THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 1559

HISLOP v HISLOP [2015] NZHC 989