CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF NEW ZEALAND v HELILOGGING LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) [2017] NZSC 132
Leave to appeal was refused because the central question—whether s 28 of the Limitation Act 1950 applies—remained bound up with unresolved factual findings below, and in those circumstances it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave to the Supreme Court.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] NZSC 132
- Parties
- Applicant: Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand; First Respondent: Helilogging Limited (in receivership and in liquidation); Second Respondent: Mark Wayne Ford (in his capacity as Trustee of the Wessex Trust); Third Respondent: Mark Wayne Ford
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 31 August 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave to Appeal Application Following Court of Appeal Decision on Summary Judgment and Limitation Period
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Act S28, Summary Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Postponement of Limitation Period, Interests of Justice
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand
Applicant
Helilogging Limited (in receivership and in liquidation)
First Respondent
Mark Wayne Ford (in his capacity as Trustee of the Wessex Trust)
Second Respondent
Mark Wayne Ford
Third Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave to Appeal Application Following Court of Appeal Decision on Summary Judgment and Limitation Period
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether s 28 of the Limitation Act 1950 applies to postpone the limitation period
- 2 Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to overturn summary judgment
- 3 Whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was refused because the central question—whether s 28 of the Limitation Act 1950 applies—remained bound up with unresolved factual findings below, and in those circumstances it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave to the Supreme Court.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Costs awarded to the respondents in the sum of $2,500
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF NEW ZEALAND v HELILOGGING LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) [2017] NZSC 132 [31 August 2017]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 62/2017[2017] NZSC 132BETWEEN CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OFNEW ZEALANDApplicantAND HELILOGGING LIMITED (INRECEIVERSHIP AND INLIQUIDATION)First RespondentMARK WAYNE FORD in his capacity asTrustee of the Wessex TrustSecond RespondentMARK WAYNE FORDThird RespondentCourt: William Young, Glazebrook and OʼRegan JJCounsel: L J Taylor QC for ApplicantP J Dale for the RespondentsJudgment: 31 August 2017JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] In August 2005 the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) declined an application made by Helilogging Ltd (Helilogging) for an exemption to allow it to use Wessex Mk2 helicopters for heli-logging. The current proceedings were issued inSeptember 2014. This, absent s 28 of the Limitation Act 1950, was outside the limitation period.1[2] The CAA applied for summary judgment on all causes of action. This was granted in the High Court.2 That decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal.3The Court of Appeal was satisfied that Helilogging had "pointed to sufficientmaterial to give an air of reality to its claim for postponement of the limitationdate."4Our assessment[3] Whether s 28 of the Limitation Act applies has not been definitively decided by the Court of Appeal. That question is tied up with the particular facts which at this stage have not been the subject of findings. In these circumstances, we do not consider it in the interests of justice to grant the application for leave to appeal.5Solicitors:Darroch Forrest, Wellington for ApplicantNeilsons Lawyers Limited, Auckland for Respondents1 It is conceded that, before the end of the limitation period, the respondents knew that they had grounds to challenge the CAA decision. Judicial review did not proceed because of funding difficulties.2 Helilogging Ltd (in rec and in liq) v Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand [2015] NZHC 2503 (Associate Judge Osborne). This was on wider grounds than merely the limitation point.3 Heli-Logging Ltd (in rec and in liq) v Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand [2017] NZCA 196 (Winkelmann, Brewer and Toogood JJ).4 At [59].5 As required by the Supreme Court Act 2003, s 13(1); and Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(1).