HARDY V MANNS HC WN CIV 2006 485 759
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to appear and prosecute the appeal and failed to identify any question of law as required by s 119 of the Residential Tenancies Act, and no points on appeal were filed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-8fb1ac7b_8c7c_48ba_a764_8edcd8b1ad4b.pdf
- Parties
- Appellant: Jason Thomas James Hardy; Respondent: Suzy Pennington and Elizabeth Manns
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 29 May 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From District Court (appeal From the Residential Tenancies Tribunal) / Determination on Appeal Following Appellant's Non Appearance
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Failure to Prosecute, Question of Law Requirement, Points on Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jason Thomas James Hardy
Appellant
Suzy Pennington and Elizabeth Manns
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal From District Court (appeal From the Residential Tenancies Tribunal) / Determination on Appeal Following Appellant's Non Appearance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for failure to prosecute
- 2 Whether the appellant identified a question of law as required by s 119 of the Residential Tenancies Act
- 3 Whether any grounds of appeal were properly presented
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to appear and prosecute the appeal and failed to identify any question of law as required by s 119 of the Residential Tenancies Act, and no points on appeal were filed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
HARDY V MANNS HC WN CIV 2006 485 759 29 May 2007IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV 2006 485 759BETWEEN JASON THOMAS JAMES HARDY Appellant AND SUZY PENNINGTON AND ELIZABETH MANNS Respondents Hearing: 28 May 2007 Appearances: No appearance for Appellant Respondents in person Judgment: 29 May 2007 at 12.00pmRESERVED JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J[1] This is an appeal from the District Court which in turn heard an appeal from the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. The matter was set down for hearing on 28 May 2007. The original time was 10.00 a.m., but by notice to the parties dated 22 May 20007 an earlier starting time of 9.00 a.m., was nominated. At 9.00 a.m., the case was called, the respondents appeared but the appellant did not. To ensure that there was no unfairness to the appellant, I arranged for the case to be called again at Court at 10.00 a.m. Once again Mr Hardy did not appear. [2] Given Mr Hardy's decision not to prosecute this appeal, the appeal will be dismissed. [3] I also make the observation that appeals from a decision of the District Court on appeal from the Residential Tenancies Tribunal are only on a question of law (s 119 Residential Tenancies Act). Mr Hardy did not identify in his notice of appealany question of law. His appeal was based on, in part, the same factual grounds mounted before the Residential Tenancies Tribunal and the District Court. In the District Court Judge Thomas gave a thorough airing of the facts and law and ruled against the appellant. [4] Mr Hardy has filed no points on appeal despite his obligation to do so. In addition, therefore, to his failure to prosecute the appeal no grounds of appeal have been identified. [5] For the reasons given the appeal is dismissed. Ronald Young J