BODY CORPORATE NUMBER DPS 91535 v 3A COMPOSITES GmbH [2022] NZHC 2912

BODY CORPORATE NUMBER DPS 91535 v 3A COMPOSITES GmbH [2022] NZHC 2912

Leave to appeal was granted because any error in refusing representative status could not be corrected on appeal from a substantive judgment, the law on representative actions is developing and the alleged errors had potential significance, and because granting leave was not likely to cause material delay.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] NZHC 2912
Parties
First Plaintiff: Body Corporate Number DPS 91535; Second Plaintiff: Argosy Property No 1 Limited; First Defendant: 3A Composites GmbH; Second Defendant: Terminus 2 Limited; Third Defendant: Skellerup Industries Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
8 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceedings (civil) / Leave to Appeal Application (interlocutory)
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Court of Appeal under s 56(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 against the decision of 14 September 2022.
Legal Topics
Representative Plaintiff Status, Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Appeal, Senior Courts Act S56(3)
Civil Procedure Representative Proceedings Appeal Class Actions Representative Plaintiff Status Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Appeal Senior Courts Act S56(3)

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Body Corporate Number DPS 91535

First Plaintiff

Argosy Property No 1 Limited

Second Plaintiff

3A Composites GmbH

First Defendant

Terminus 2 Limited

Second Defendant

Skellerup Industries Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Representative Proceedings (civil) / Leave to Appeal Application (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should have been granted representative plaintiff status
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s 56(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016
  3. 3 Whether any error in refusing representative status justifies an intermediate appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted because any error in refusing representative status could not be corrected on appeal from a substantive judgment, the law on representative actions is developing and the alleged errors had potential significance, and because granting leave was not likely to cause material delay.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Court of Appeal under s 56(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 against the decision of 14 September 2022.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs have leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of 14 September 2022.