PUKEPUKE v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2018] NZCA 552
Leave to appeal was declined because the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the discharge decision from the District Court directly and there is no prospect of success on a second appeal against the destruction order without a successful discharge.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] NZCA 552
- Parties
- Applicant: Allen Wardle Pukepuke; Respondent: Auckland Council
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 4 December 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal (court of Appeal) / Leave to Appeal Application Heard and Decided
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal declined
- Legal Topics
- Dog Destruction Order, Discharge Without Conviction, Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time, Jurisdiction
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Allen Wardle Pukepuke
Applicant
Auckland Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (court of Appeal) / Leave to Appeal Application Heard and Decided
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the District Court refusing discharge without conviction
- 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
- 3 Whether there is any real prospect of success on a second appeal against the destruction order absent a successful discharge
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was declined because the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the discharge decision from the District Court directly and there is no prospect of success on a second appeal against the destruction order without a successful discharge.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal declined
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal declined.
- Council advised not to execute the destruction order pending filing of an extension application within 14 days
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
PUKEPUKE v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2018] NZCA 552 [4 December 2018]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA478/2018[2018] NZCA 552BETWEEN ALLEN WARDLE PUKEPUKEApplicantAND AUCKLAND COUNCILRespondentHearing: 29 November 2018Court: Winkelmann, Peters and Whata JJCounsel: RAB Samuel for ApplicantA R Govind for RespondentJudgment: 4 December 2018 at 10.30 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is declined.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Whata J)[1] Mr Pukepuke's dog, Biggie, got loose and injured two sheep. Mr Pukepukeapplied for discharge without conviction on one charge of owning a dog whichattacked stock.1 His application was declined.2 An order was made for Biggie'sdestruction. Mr Pukepuke appealed the destruction order. The High Court dismissedthis appeal.3 Mr Pukepuke now seeks leave to appeal:1 Dog Control Act 1996, s 57.2 Auckland Council v Pukepuke [2018] NZDC 6900.3 Pukepuke v Auckland Council [2018] NZHC 1361.(a) the decision of the District Court refusing to discharge him withoutconviction; and(b) the High Court decision upholding the destruction order.[2] There being no jurisdiction in this Court to hear the appeal on the dischargeapplication directly from the District Court, and there being no prospect of success ona second appeal against the destruction order without the discharge, leave is declined.[3] What about Biggie? He can rest easy for now. Mr Samuel has undertaken tocommence an application in the High Court for an extension of time within which toappeal the decision to dismiss the discharge application. Mr Govind will recommendto the Council that it does not execute the destruction order pending the hearing of theextension application, provided it is filed within the next 14 days. He says it is mostlikely the Council will follow that advice. We are grateful for that indication.