AUTO SOUNDS AND ALARMS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) & ORS v CRONE & ANOR CA413/2013 [2013] NZCA 538

AUTO SOUNDS AND ALARMS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) & ORS v CRONE & ANOR CA413/2013 [2013] NZCA 538

The extension was granted because the appellants filed their notice of appeal within time, were otherwise diligent, the delay resulted from an oversight of a rules amendment, the respondents consented and would not be prejudiced, and the appeal was ready to be set down for a two day fixture.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] NZCA 538
Parties
Appellant: AUTO SOUNDS AND ALARMS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION); Appellant: GRAEME WILLIAM MILLS AND KAREN ANN MILLS; Respondent: STEPHEN CRONE; Respondent: SCITUATE LIMITED
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
4 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Extension of Time Under R 43(3) Court of Appeal (civil) Rules 2005
Outcome
Extension of time granted by consent
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Fixture Application, Court of Appeal (civil) Rules 2005, Consent to Extension
Civil Procedure Appellate Practice Company Law Extension of Time Fixture Application Court of Appeal (civil) Rules 2005 Consent to Extension

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AUTO SOUNDS AND ALARMS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION)

Appellant

GRAEME WILLIAM MILLS AND KAREN ANN MILLS

Appellant

STEPHEN CRONE

Respondent

SCITUATE LIMITED

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Extension of Time Under R 43(3) Court of Appeal (civil) Rules 2005

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to apply for a fixture under r 43(3) Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005
  2. 2 Whether appellants acted diligently despite delay caused by oversight of a rules amendment
  3. 3 Whether respondents would be prejudiced by the extension

Ratio Decidendi

The extension was granted because the appellants filed their notice of appeal within time, were otherwise diligent, the delay resulted from an oversight of a rules amendment, the respondents consented and would not be prejudiced, and the appeal was ready to be set down for a two day fixture.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted by consent

Orders

  • Time for applying for a fixture extended until 8 November 2013
  • No order as to costs