CHANG v LEE [2016] NZCA 473
The one day delay was minimal, resulted from a logistical delay in delivering documents and caused no prejudice to the respondent who did not oppose; accordingly the court exercised its discretion under r 43 to grant the extension of time.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] NZCA 473
- Parties
- Appellant: Chin-Fu Chang; Respondent: Hsing-En Lee
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 3 October 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time Under R 43 (on the Papers)
- Outcome
- Application for an extension of time granted.
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Late Filing, Delay, Prejudice
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Chin-Fu Chang
Appellant
Hsing-En Lee
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time Under R 43 (on the Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to grant extension of time under r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005
- 2 Whether the one day delay and its cause justify exercising the court's discretion
- 3 Whether respondent would suffer prejudice and whether the matter may be dealt with on the papers
Ratio Decidendi
The one day delay was minimal, resulted from a logistical delay in delivering documents and caused no prejudice to the respondent who did not oppose; accordingly the court exercised its discretion under r 43 to grant the extension of time.
Court Disposition
Application for an extension of time granted.
Orders
- Extension of time granted under r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CHANG v LEE [2016] NZCA 473 [3 October 2016]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA279/2016[2016] NZCA 473BETWEEN CHIN-FU CHANGAppellantAND HSING-EN LEERespondentCourt: French, Asher and Brown JJCounsel: R Reed and A Manuson for AppellantG D Wiles for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)3 October 2016 at 2.30 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for an extension of time under r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 is granted.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by French J)[1] The appellant applies for an extension of time under r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.[2] The appellant was one day late in filing the case on appeal due to a delay in delivering a large volume of documents.[3] The respondent neither consents to nor opposes the application, but abides the decision of the Court. In those circumstances it is appropriate to deal with the matter on the papers.[4] The delay was minimal and there has been no prejudice to the respondent.[5] The application is accordingly granted.Solicitors:Prestige Lawyers Ltd, Auckland for AppellantMurdoch Price, Manukau for Respondent