NEWALL v DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU [2018] NZCA 4
The application for an extension of time under r 43 is dismissed because the applicant is not entitled to discovery on appeal, can inspect the court file as of right, lacks standing to represent his wife after multiple habeas corpus attempts, and the interests of justice do not require an extension; consequently the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] NZCA 4
- Parties
- Appellant: Ann Lorraine Newall; Respondent: District Court at Manukau
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 2 February 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Extension of Time (rule 43) in Appeal / Determination on the Papers
- Outcome
- Application for extension of time dismissed; appeal deemed abandoned
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Disclosure on Appeal, Court File Inspection, Representation by Lay Litigant, Abandonment of Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ann Lorraine Newall
Appellant
District Court at Manukau
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time (rule 43) in Appeal / Determination on the Papers
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to grant extension of time under r 43
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to discovery on appeal
- 3 Whether the applicant has standing to represent his wife in habeas corpus proceedings
Ratio Decidendi
The application for an extension of time under r 43 is dismissed because the applicant is not entitled to discovery on appeal, can inspect the court file as of right, lacks standing to represent his wife after multiple habeas corpus attempts, and the interests of justice do not require an extension; consequently the appeal is deemed abandoned and the Registrar is directed not to accept the habeas document for filing in the District Court.
Court Disposition
Application for extension of time dismissed; appeal deemed abandoned
Orders
- Application for extension of time under r 43 dismissed
- The appeal is deemed abandoned for failure to comply with the rules within the prescribed time
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
NEWALL v DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU [2018] NZCA 4 [2 February 2018]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA573/2017[2018] NZCA 4BETWEEN ANN LORRAINE NEWALLAppellantAND DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAURespondentCourt: Miller and Brown JJCounsel: David Newall in personK Laurenson for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)2 February 2018 at 2.00 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for an extension of time under r 43 is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Miller J)[1] On 21 December 2017 Mr Newall, who purports to represent his wife Ann,filed an application for extension of time under r 43. He accompanied it with a"request for disclosure" from the defendant, the District Court at Manukau.[2] The application for extension is based on a claim that the Court has disclosed"their information" to Crown Law but not to Mr Newall. This is misconceived.Mr Newall is not entitled to discovery on appeal — he can search the court file as ofright — nor should he need further information to comply with the rules.[3] As Mr Newall is a lay litigant and the proceeding invokes habeas corpus, anextension might ordinarily be granted. But it appears he has brought no fewer thanfive habeas corpus applications and lacks standing to represent Mrs Newall.The interests of justice do not require an extension.[4] The application is dismissed, with the result that the appeal is deemedabandoned because Mr Newall did not comply with the rules within the timeprescribed.[5] For completeness, we have had regard to the document filed by Mr Newalltitled "Urgent Memorandum/petition to the court for the release of the applicant29/01/18". The Registrar is not to accept that document for filing. Habeas corpusapplications must be brought in the High Court.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent