DONNA MARY NEWLANDS v NELSON CITY COUNCIL [2020] NZSC 80

DONNA MARY NEWLANDS v NELSON CITY COUNCIL [2020] NZSC 80 [10 August 2020]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC 53/2020[2020] NZSC 80BETWEEN DONNA MARY NEWLANDSApplicantAND NELSON CITY COUNCILRespondentCourt: Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJCounsel: Applicant in personK E Mitchell for RespondentJudgment: 10 August 2020JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for a stay is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONSIntroduction[1] Ms Newlands has filed an application for leave to appeal against a judgmentof Collins J of 29 June 2020.1 In that decision Collins J declined Ms Newlands'sapplication to review a decision of the Deputy Registrar not to dispense with securityfor costs on Ms Newlands's appeal to the Court of Appeal against a strike-out decisionby the High Court.2[2] The application for leave has its origins in two charges brought by therespondent against Ms Newlands under ss 57(2) and 33EC of the Dog Control Act1 Newlands v Nelson City Council [2020] NZCA 262 (Collins J).2 Newlands v Nelson City Council [2020] NZHC 447 (Associate Judge Lester).1996. The charges were laid by the Nelson City Council on 31 January 2019 and aredue to be heard before the District Court on 19 August 2020.Stay application[3] In her application for leave to this Court, Ms Newlands seeks a stay of theDistrict Court proceedings.3[4] The stay application is opposed by the respondent. It argues that r 30 of theSupreme Court Rules 2004 would only allow this Court to order a stay of executionof the Court of Appeal decision and not of the District Court hearing in separatecriminal proceedings. In any event, it is submitted that a stay is not appropriate for anumber of reasons, including:(a) Allowing the stay would prejudice the integrity of the criminalproceedings.(b) There is no prejudice to Ms Newlands. The District Court is scheduledto hear and consider evidence as part of the substantive defendedcriminal hearing and the District Court (upheld by the High Court) hasalready determined that it is best for the legal issues raised to bedetermined at the defended hearing once all the evidence has beenheard.4(c) There has already been considerable delay in hearing the charges andno further delay is warranted.Our assessment[5] We accept the respondent's submission that there is likely no jurisdiction for astay order. But in any event, we accept the submission that a stay would not bewarranted in the circumstances of this case.3 She was asked by the Registry to clarify which proceedings she was referring to but she has notprovided any further information. We assume therefore that it is sought in relation to the DistrictCourt hearing on 19 August 2020.4 Newlands v Nelson City Council [2019] NZHC 1692 (Cull J) at [3].Result[6] The application for a stay is dismissed.Solicitors:Tasman Law Limited, Nelson for Respondent