WISELINE CORPORATION LIMITED And Anor V RITA HOCKEY AS EXECUTRIX IN THE ESTATE OF RUSSELL GARLAND HOCKEY And Anor CA CA4/03

WISELINE CORPORATION LIMITED And Anor V RITA HOCKEY AS EXECUTRIX IN THE ESTATE OF RUSSELL GARLAND HOCKEY And Anor CA CA4/03

The appellants pursued appellate steps that reasonably required the second respondents to incur legal costs; the Court exercised its discretion to award costs to the respondents and quantified those costs at one-quarter of the Court's usual daily rate, resulting in awards of $1,500 on each appeal and striking out CA4/03 and dismissing the extension application in CA245/02.

Citation
openlaw-32fe1359_76d9_4764_a5fb_f6f927e160c5.pdf
Parties
First Appellant: Wiseline Corporation Limited; Second Appellant: Spaceways Holdings Limited; First Respondent: Rita Hockey as Executrix in the Estate of Russell Garland Hockey; Second Respondent: Rita Hockey
Court
Unknown Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
20 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Application for Extension of Time; Striking Out for Want of Prosecution; Costs Applications; Judgment on the Papers
Outcome
Application for extension of time in CA245/02 dismissed; appeal CA4/03 struck out for want of prosecution; costs awarded to second respondents on each appeal.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Striking Out for Want of Prosecution, Costs on Appeal, Case on Appeal
Civil Procedure Appeal Costs Extension of Time Striking Out for Want of Prosecution Costs on Appeal Case on Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wiseline Corporation Limited

First Appellant

Spaceways Holdings Limited

Second Appellant

Rita Hockey as Executrix in the Estate of Russell Garland Hockey

First Respondent

Rita Hockey

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Application for Extension of Time; Striking Out for Want of Prosecution; Costs Applications; Judgment on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to file a case on appeal under r 10
  2. 2 Whether to strike out an appeal for want of prosecution
  3. 3 What quantum of costs is appropriate for the respondent given the appellants' conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants pursued appellate steps that reasonably required the second respondents to incur legal costs; the Court exercised its discretion to award costs to the respondents and quantified those costs at one-quarter of the Court's usual daily rate, resulting in awards of $1,500 on each appeal and striking out CA4/03 and dismissing the extension application in CA245/02.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time in CA245/02 dismissed; appeal CA4/03 struck out for want of prosecution; costs awarded to second respondents on each appeal.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time pursuant to r 10(1)(b) dismissed (CA245/02)
  • Order striking out appeal CA4/03 for want of prosecution