30 Jun 2023
No miscarriage of justice was established: the trial judge was best placed to assess credibility, the audible record sufficed for findings, AVL deficiencies were managed and did not materially prejudice the defence, and the Crown was entitled not to call a witness it considered unreliable; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
19 Jul 2022
The Tribunal's hearing conduct—frequent and substantive judicial interventions amounting to cross‑examination, exclusion of the applicants' witnesses, multiple implied 'perjury' warnings without foundation, adverse characterisations, and premature publication of views—gave rise to an appearance of bias in the eyes of the fair‑minded informed observer; the interim 2012 decision is therefore set aside in part (redactions ordered), declarations of apparent bias and unfair hearing are granted, while the substantive 2012 valuation decision is not set aside because appeal remedies and rehearing pro…
5 Mar 2021
The Court refused to order the exclusion of the nominated witnesses and declined to impose a blanket prohibition on cross‑examination using documents that had not been recently brought to a witness's attention; it endorsed a default practice that additions to the common bundle should be provided with 48 hours' notice where possible under r 9.2, but held that the rule is not absolute and that the Court will permit questioning on documents outside that window where fairness and the interests of justice require it, taking account of tikanga and the primarily legal/illustrative nature of the evid…
2 Sept 2016
Because the contested issues turn largely on legal interpretation and documentary evidence rather than disputed witness credibility, and briefs of evidence had been exchanged, the fundamental right of plaintiffs to be present throughout the hearing was not displaced; accordingly the defendants' application to exclude the plaintiffs was declined, with the limited exception of one non‑party witness (Mr Gepp).
19 Aug 2014
The discretionary power to exclude party‑witnesses exists but was not exercised because the issues were primarily documentary and legal rather than credibility driven, signed briefs and s261 interview transcripts had been exchanged and any late explanations could be addressed in closing submissions; therefore exclusion was unnecessary to secure a fair trial and the presumption that parties may attend throughout the hearing was upheld.
5 Oct 2010
The examinations were ordered to be conducted in chambers rather than open court because the liquidator suffered no prejudice from private hearings and the extraordinary nature of examination powers and absence of substantive adversarial proceedings justified privacy; to preserve the integrity of evidence the other examinees were excluded from attending co-examinees' hearings and a prohibition was imposed on communicating questions or answers between examinees until all examinations conclude.