This note is not part of the rules, but is intended to indicate their general effect.
These rules, which come into force on 1 August 2000, amend the High Court Rules. The rules—
•make a number of miscellaneous amendments (rules 3 to 6, 9, 13 to 15, and 21)
•insert new rules relating to the setting aside of voidable transactions and charges under the Companies Act 1955 and the Companies Act 1993 (rules 7 to 12, 16 to 18, 22, and 23)
•prescribe a new procedure for appeals on questions of law under clause 5 of Schedule 2 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and for the enforcement of awards under Article 35 of Schedule 1 of that Act (rules 9(2) and (3), 19, 20, 22, and 24).
Rule 3 adds a new subclause (7) to rule 61C. Rule 61C relates to the review by a Judge of an order or decision of a Master in Chambers. Subclause (6) provides that an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of a Judge on a review may be made only with the leave of a Judge but does not specify a time within which the application for leave must be made. The new subclause (7) requires the application for leave to be filed and served within 7 days after the date of the Judge's decision.
Rule 4 provides that the new time limit for appeals in rule 61C does not apply to an appeal from a decision of a Judge given before the amendment made by rule 3 comes into force.
Rule 5 amends rule 264 of the High Court Rules. Rule 264 sets out a procedure for the review of decisions and orders made in interlocutory proceedings. The rule is amended in 2 respects.
First, applications must now be both filed and served within the 7 day time limits specified in the rule. At present the time limits apply only to filing applications.
Second, the rule is amended to make it clear that it does not apply to the review of decisions of Masters in Chambers. Rule 61C sets out a procedure for the review of decisions of Masters in Chambers. There is conflicting judicial authority whether a decision of a Master in Chambers may be reviewed under either rule 61C or rule 264, or only under rule 61C. In future, applications to review decisions of Masters in Chambers will have to made under rule 61C.
Rule 6 provides that the new requirement to serve a copy of an application under rule 264 does not apply in relation to existing applications.
The amendments in rules 7 to 12 relate principally to applications for orders that voidable transactions or charges not be set aside and require the applications to be made by way of originating applications.
Rule 9 also requires the originating application procedure to be used for—
•applications by creditors and shareholders for leave to propose a compromise under Part 5B of the Companies Act 1955 and under Part 14 of the Companies Act 1993:
•applications by creditors and shareholders for leave to apply for orders as to the effect of a compromise in the liquidation of a company under section 209O of the Companies Act 1955 and under section 233 of the Companies Act 1993.
Rule 13 revokes rule 540 of the High Court Rules relating to the giving of judgments and substitutes a new rule. The revision of the rule results from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Bell-Booth v Bell-Booth  2 NZLR 2 and, in particular, to the comments made in that case in relation to the application of the rule to orders in Chambers or away from the Court.
Rule 540 currently provides for the giving of judgments in 2 ways. First, a judgment may be given by the Judge reading or pronouncing the decision of the Court, with or without reasons, in open Court. Second, a judgment may be given by making copies signed by the Judge available to the parties through the Registrar. The term judgment is defined by rule 539 to include decrees and orders.
The new rule 540 provides that a judgment may be given orally or in writing. If a judgment is to be given orally, unless it is a judgment on an ex parte application, the parties or their counsel must be given the opportunity to be present when the Judge gives the judgment or to hear the Judge give the judgement, for example, by telephone. The new rule provides that a judgment is given orally when it is read or pronounced by the Judge and that a written judgment is given when it is signed by the Judge and bears a date and time that purport to be the date on which and the time at which it is signed.
The principal changes made by the new rule are to provide for judgments to be given orally without the necessity for them to be given in open Court and for written judgments to bear the date and time they are signed by the Judge.
Rule 14 substitutes new subclauses (3) and (4) in rule 541 of the High Court Rules. The new subclause (3) provides that a judgment may be sealed at any time after it is given unless the Judge directs that it must not be sealed until some later date. The current subclause enables a judgment to be sealed as at an earlier date than the date on which it is given. The new subclause (4) provides that a sealed judgment must show both the date on which it is given in accordance with new rule 540 and the date on which it is sealed.
Rule 15 substitutes a new rule 542. Rule 542 currently states that a judgment takes effect from the day of its date. The rule also requires a party who has sealed a judgment to give notice of the sealing of the judgment to every other party who has filed an address for service. The new rule 542 provides, in line with the new rule 540, that a judgment takes effect when it is given. It will also require a copy of the sealed judgment to be served on every party who has given an address for service.
The amendments in rules 16 to 18 relate to the form, content, and filing of a liquidator's notice to set aside a voidable transaction or a voidable charge.
Rule 20 adds a new Part 17 to the High Court Rules relating to the following applications to the High Court under the Arbitration Act 1996:
•applications by way of appeal under clause 5(1)(a) or (b) of Schedule 2 of that Act:
•applications for leave to appeal under clause 5(1)(c) of Schedule 2 of that Act:
•applications for entry of an award as a judgment under article 35 of Schedule 1 of that Act.
Rule 9(2) and (3) and rule 19 make consequential amendments to rules 458D and 701 of the High Court Rules.
Rule 21 substitutes references to a plaintiff for references to an applicant in forms 64F and 64G in line with the terminology in rule 700I to which those forms relate.
Rule 23 is a transitional provision relating to the rules concerning voidable transactions.
Rule 24 is a transitional provision relating to arbitrations.