This note is not part of the rules, but is intended to indicate their general effect.
These rules amend the High Court Rules. The rules come into force on 1 June 2006.
Rule 4 amends rule 3 of the High Court Rules to make it clear that the term working day when used in a judgment, order, direction, or other document means a working day as defined in rule 3 of the High Court Rules rather than as the term is defined in the Interpretation Act 1999. This change brings the High Court Rules into line with the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. A corresponding amendment is made to the District Courts Rules 1992 by the District Courts Amendment Rules 2006.
Rule 5 inserts new rules 65A and 65B relating to the use of Maori in legal proceedings. Section 4(1) of the Maori Language Act 1987 entitles parties, counsel, witnesses, and, with the leave of the court, other persons to speak Maori in legal proceedings. Section 4(5) provides for the making of rules of court relating to the giving of notice of intention to speak Maori and for regulating matters of procedure generally when Maori is, or is to be, spoken.
Notice must be given of intention to speak Maori at case management conferences and hearings and must be filed and served at least 10 working days before the relevant conference or hearing (new rule 65A). Failure to give notice will not prevent a person speaking Maori, but the Court may adjourn the conference or hearing to enable an interpreter to be available and may take the failure to give notice into account in making an award of costs (new rule 65B). Corresponding rules are incorporated in the District Courts Rules 1992 by the District Courts Amendment Rules 2006.
Rule 6 inserts a new form 4A in Schedule 1 for giving notice of intention to speak Maori in legal proceedings.
Rule 7 amends rule 107 to require certain proceedings relating to the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 to be filed in the Wellington Registry of the High Court. The proceedings are—
•applications for review or for one of the prerogative writs relating to designations under the Act:
•applications under section 35 of the Act to extend the period of a designation:
•applications under section 47E of the Act to extend the investigation period applying to goods seized and detained under section 47A of the Act:
•applications under section 55 of the Act to forfeit property to the Crown.
Rule 8 inserts a new rule 251A. The new rule applies to defended interlocutory applications and requires both the applicant and respondent to each file and serve on all parties before the hearing a synopsis of argument. A corresponding rule is incorporated in the District Courts Rules 1992 by the District Courts Amendment Rules 2006.
Rule 9 substitutes a new rule 252, which deals with the situation where a party fails to appear at the hearing of an interlocutory application. Under the current rule, the Court is expressly authorised to strike out an application if the applicant fails to appear. However, it is unclear whether the Court may strike out the application if the respondent fails to appear. It is also unclear whether the Court may recall a determination to strike out an application. The new rule 252 makes it clear that the Court may strike out an application if the respondent or the applicant fails to appear and, further, that the Court may recall an order to strike out the application. The new rule also prescribes a period of 5 working days in which applications for reinstatement or recall must be made. Time runs from the making of the order to strike out or, if the applicant was neither present nor represented when that order was made, from the day on which the applicant is notified of the decision given at the hearing.
Rule 10 inserts a new rule 299A. The new rule is similar to the former rule 306 and will enable a party on whom a pleading or other document is served, without necessarily going through the normal discovery process, to require production of a document referred to in the pleading or document.
Rule 11 replaces rule 512, which relates to affidavits in a foreign language, with a new rule. The new rules makes 2 changes. First,
“foreign language” is replaced with
“language other than English”. Second, the new rule reflects the operation of the rule in practice and the commentary in McGechan on Procedure. If an affidavit in a language other than English (non-English affidavit) is filed, the non-English affidavit must be accompanied by an affidavit by an interpreter to which is exhibited both a copy of the non-English affidavit and the interpreter's translation of that non-English affidavit. A similar change is made to the corresponding rule in the District Courts Rules 1992 by the District Courts Amendment Rules 2006.
Rule 12 amends rule 899 as a result of new rule 899A.
Rule 13 inserts a new rule 899A. Under the new rule, the Court may, in exceptional circumstances, make an order that an award be entered as a judgment on an ex parte application.
Rule 14 replaces rule 900 with a new rule. Under the new rule, a Registrar may enter an award as a judgment if a defendant does not apply under rule 901 for an order refusing recognition and enforcement of the award within—
An application to fix a shorter period may be made ex parte. The power to fix a shorter period is new.
Rule 15 consequentially amends rule 901 to reflect the changes in new rule 900.
Rule 16 amends form 6 in Schedule 1. Form 6 is the form of the memorandum that must be attached to a notice of proceeding. The rule omits clauses 8 to 12 relating to payment and admission of the plaintiff's claim. The omission of these clauses results from the revocation by rule 15 of the High Court Amendment Rules 2004 of rules 347 to 368 relating to payments into court and admissions of relief.
Rules 17 to 20 consequentially amend forms of affidavits in Schedule 1 of the High Court Rules to be sworn by persons wishing to administer intestate estates. The amendments are consequential on the Civil Union Act 2004.
Rule 21 consequentially amends form 110 to reflect the changes in new rule 900.
Rule 22 replaces Schedule 2 of the High Court Rules with a new schedule. Schedule 2 sets out the daily recovery rates for the purposes of costs awards. The new Schedule 2 increases those rates for each of the 3 categories of proceeding. Under the High Court Rules, awards of costs are determined on the basis of applying the appropriate daily recovery rate for the particular category of proceeding to the time allocated for each step in the proceeding specified in Schedule 3 of the High Court Rules.
Rule 23 amends Schedule 3 in 3 respects. The first is to replace references in items 4.10, 4.11, 14, and 15 to judicial conferences with references to case management conferences. The second is to remove the statements under the headings Bankruptcy proceedings and Company liquidation proceedings that the items for which costs may be awarded in those proceedings are additional to the costs in items 1 to 12. Instead, it is made clear that under both categories of proceedings the items for which costs may be awarded are in place of items 1, 2, 4.10, 4.11, 8, and 9. The third creates a separate category for costs purposes for originating applications under—
Rule 24 is a transitional rule relating to the recovery of costs. The rule provides that the changes to costs made by these rules apply to proceedings commenced after these rules take effect. In the case of proceedings commenced before these rules take effect—