LAU v LI [2016] NZCA 52
The Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to entertain the purported appeal from interlocutory decisions of an Associate Judge sitting in chambers; the correct remedy was a review under s 26P(1) Judicature Act 1908 and any review would now require an extension of time under r 2.3(2) High Court Rules, therefore the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] NZCA 52
- Parties
- Appellant: AUGUSTINE LAU; First Respondent: DALUN LI; Second Respondent: LIPING CHEN; Third Respondent: BARFOOT & THOMPSON LIMITED; Fourth Respondent: CHARLES HSU
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 9 March 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From High Court (interlocutory Matters) / Appeal Filed in Court of Appeal; Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction (on the Papers)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal, Review Under S 26 P(1) Judicature Act 1908, Security for Costs, Initial Disclosure, Strike Out, Extension of Time Under High Court Rules
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
AUGUSTINE LAU
Appellant
DALUN LI
First Respondent
LIPING CHEN
Second Respondent
BARFOOT & THOMPSON LIMITED
Third Respondent
CHARLES HSU
Fourth Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (interlocutory Matters) / Appeal Filed in Court of Appeal; Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction (on the Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from interlocutory orders of an Associate Judge sitting in chambers
- 2 Whether the correct procedure was a review under s 26P(1) of the Judicature Act 1908 rather than an appeal
- 3 Whether any application for review would require extension of time under r 2.3(2) High Court Rules
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to entertain the purported appeal from interlocutory decisions of an Associate Judge sitting in chambers; the correct remedy was a review under s 26P(1) Judicature Act 1908 and any review would now require an extension of time under r 2.3(2) High Court Rules, therefore the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
- There will be no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
LAU v LI [2016] NZCA 52 [9 March 2016]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA540/2015[2016] NZCA 52BETWEEN AUGUSTINE LAUAppellantAND DALUN LIFirst RespondentLIPING CHENSecond RespondentBARFOOT & THOMPSON LIMITEDThird RespondentCHARLES HSUFourth RespondentCourt: Harrison, Stevens and Cooper JJCounsel: Appellant in personD L C Liu for First and Second RespondentsM S R Lucas for Third and Fourth RespondentsJudgment:(On the papers)9 March 2016 at 2:30 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Cooper J)[1] This appeal purports to challenge various aspects of the judgment of Associate Judge Christiansen delivered on 1 September 2015.1[2] In that judgment, the Associate Judge dealt with applications for security for costs and provision of initial disclosure, and a strike-out application made by the appellant.[3] It is plain that all of the applications before the Associate Judge were interlocutory applications, and that in dealing with them the Judge was exercising the powers of a High Court Judge sitting in chambers.2[4] That being the case, any challenge to the judgment should have been by way of an application for review under s 26P(1) of the Judicature Act 1908, and not by appeal to this Court. The appellant was offered an opportunity to make submissions to the contrary. His submission of 25 February 2016 did not respond to the jurisdictional issue but effectively expressed a preference that the matter be heard as an appeal in this Court. It appears that some of the reasons for his preference may be based on a misapprehension that a review would be dealt with by Associate Judge Christiansen. That of course is not the case; the review would be conducted by a Judge of the High Court.[5] Any application for review would now need to be preceded by an application to extend the time for making the application having regard to the time limits in r 2.3(2) of the High Court Rules.[6] However, we are satisfied that this Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the purported appeal. On that basis, the appeal is dismissed.[7] There will be no order as to costs.Solicitors:Yu Lawyers, Auckland for First and Second RespondentsWynn Williams, Auckland for Third and Fourth Respondents1 Lau v Li [2015] NZHC 2106.2 High Court Rules, rr 2.1 and 7.34.