WISELINE CORPORATION LIMITED And Anor V RITA HOCKEY AS EXECUTRIX IN THE ESTATE OF RUSSELL GARLAND HOCKEY And Anor CA CA245/02

WISELINE CORPORATION LIMITED And Anor V RITA HOCKEY AS EXECUTRIX IN THE ESTATE OF RUSSELL GARLAND HOCKEY And Anor CA CA245/02

The appellants failed to justify an extension under r10 because they did not show good reason for delay nor that the appeal had apparent merit; the application for extension of time was dismissed and, if CA245/02 had been brought in time, it is now deemed abandoned under r10; leave for a non‑lawyer director to represent the corporations was properly refused consistent with binding authorities.

Citation
openlaw-c9753a36_44ea_4c95_b96a_8bc789296a05.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
17 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Court of Appeal Civil Appeal (procedural/interlocutory) / Application for Extension of Time; Judgment on the Papers
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed; if CA245/02 was brought in time it is deemed abandoned under r10; leave to permit director to represent the corporations was without merit and properly refused.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time Under Court Rules, Representation of Corporation by Non Lawyer, Abandonment of Appeal, Security for Costs, Statutory Demand, Caveats, Timetable Orders
Civil Procedure Company Law Appeal Law Extension of Time Under Court Rules Representation of Corporation by Non Lawyer Abandonment of Appeal Security for Costs Statutory Demand +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 8 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

Court of Appeal Civil Appeal (procedural/interlocutory) / Application for Extension of Time; Judgment on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should grant an extension of time under r10 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 1997
  2. 2 Whether a director (Mr Darby) can represent the appellant corporations
  3. 3 Whether the appeal CA245/02 is time‑barred or deemed abandoned

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to justify an extension under r10 because they did not show good reason for delay nor that the appeal had apparent merit; the application for extension of time was dismissed and, if CA245/02 had been brought in time, it is now deemed abandoned under r10; leave for a non‑lawyer director to represent the corporations was properly refused consistent with binding authorities.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed; if CA245/02 was brought in time it is deemed abandoned under r10; leave to permit director to represent the corporations was without merit and properly refused.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time dismissed
  • If CA245/02 was brought in time it is deemed abandoned under r10 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 1997