SHIRLEY V WAIRARAPA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD SC 10/2006
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on the approved ground under Rule 29 to determine whether the Court of Appeal should have differed from the High Court's discretionary decision.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SHIRLEY V WAIRARAPA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD SC 10/2006
- Parties
- Appellant: Alan John Shirley; Respondent: Wairarapa District Health Board
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 21 March 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal (supreme Court) / Leave Application Granted
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Discretionary Decision, Standard of Review
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alan John Shirley
Appellant
Wairarapa District Health Board
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (supreme Court) / Leave Application Granted
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal should have differed from the High Court's discretionary decision
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on the approved ground under Rule 29 to determine whether the Court of Appeal should have differed from the High Court's discretionary decision.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal granted.
- Approved ground: whether the Court of Appeal should have differed from the High Court's discretionary decision.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SHIRLEY V WAIRARAPA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD SC 10/2006 21 March 2006IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 10/2006 [2006] NZSC 10BETWEEN ALAN JOHN SHIRLEY Appellant AND WAIRARAPA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD Respondent Court: Tipping, McGrath and Anderson JJ Counsel: C J Hodson QC for Appellant M G Ring QC for Respondent Judgment: 21 March 2006JUDGMENT OF THE COURT[1] The application for leave to appeal is granted. [2] The approved ground, in terms of Rule 29, is whether the Court of Appeal should have differed from the High Court's discretionary decision.Solicitors: Bartlett Partners, Wellington for Appellant Duncan Cotterill, Nelson for Respondent