DILIP-KUMAR RUPA, SARDADEVI RUPA, REWA-KARA RUPA AND KOKILA RUPA V BANK OF NEW ZEALAND CA CA76/2008
The Court accepted it had jurisdiction to grant a stay but refused to do so because the proposed appeal lacked discernible merit and there was no good reason to prevent payment out of the security for costs; any successful appeal could result in repayment of costs.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-095ad629_3143_4a9c_a09b_79b9df3ee6c5.pdf
- Parties
- Appellant: Dilip-Kumar Rupa; Appellant: Sardadevi Rupa; Appellant: Rewa-Kara Rupa; Appellant: Kokila Rupa; Respondent: Bank of New Zealand
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 9 March 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / After Court of Appeal Judgment; Application for Stay and Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court
- Outcome
- Application for a stay dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Payment Out of Security for Costs, Leave to Appeal, Complaint Against Judge
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dilip-Kumar Rupa
Appellant
Sardadevi Rupa
Appellant
Rewa-Kara Rupa
Appellant
Kokila Rupa
Appellant
Bank of New Zealand
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / After Court of Appeal Judgment; Application for Stay and Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to grant a stay to prevent payment out of security for costs
- 2 Whether the proposed appeal has sufficient merit to justify a stay
- 3 Whether there is jurisdiction to grant a stay
Ratio Decidendi
The Court accepted it had jurisdiction to grant a stay but refused to do so because the proposed appeal lacked discernible merit and there was no good reason to prevent payment out of the security for costs; any successful appeal could result in repayment of costs.
Court Disposition
Application for a stay dismissed.
Orders
- Application for a stay dismissed
- Respondent may be paid out the security for costs provided by the appellants
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
DILIP-KUMAR RUPA, SARDADEVI RUPA, REWA-KARA RUPA AND KOKILA RUPA V BANK OF NEW ZEALAND CA CA76/2008 9 March 2009IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA76/2008 [2009] NZCA 63BETWEEN DILIP-KUMAR RUPA, SARDADEVI RUPA, REWA-KARA RUPA AND KOKILA RUPA Appellants AND BANK OF NEW ZEALAND Respondent Counsel: Dilip Rupa in person for Appellants M J Tingey for Respondent Judgment: 9 March 2009 at 2.30 pm(On the papers)JUDGMENT OF WILLIAM YOUNG P The application for a stay is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________ [1] Since the judgment of the Court delivered on 13 February 2009, the appellants have now filed a further application for a stay. I am told that they have also applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Also lodged with the Court has been a document styled "Memorandum to inform Court of Appeal of untenable actions by senior court staff causing prejudice". I see no point in commenting on this latter document. [2] The primary significance of the granting of a stay would be to prevent the payment out to the respondent of the security for costs previously provided by the appellants. [3] I accept that there is be jurisdiction to grant a stay but decline to do so.[4] The appellants say that they are seeking a "Commission of Inquiry via their Member of Parliament" into the miscarriage of justice which they say has occurred. There is also a repetition of what I regard as a plainly unsound complaint about Wild J sitting on the appeal. So I see the proposed appeal as lacking any discernible merit. [5] As well, I see no good reason why the respondent should not, in the meantime, be paid out the security for costs. If leave to appeal were granted and the appeal were successful, the costs could no doubt be repaid. [6] So the application for a stay is dismissed.Solicitors: Bell Gully, Auckland for Respondent