MANUKAU GOLF CLUB INCORPORATED v SHOYE VENTURE LIMITED SC 36/2012

MANUKAU GOLF CLUB INCORPORATED v SHOYE VENTURE LIMITED SC 36/2012

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the Court of Appeal erred by not making an order for costs and by providing no reasons; the grant reflects the Court's conclusion that these issues raise matters of sufficient general or public importance to warrant the Supreme Court's consideration.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MANUKAU GOLF CLUB INCORPORATED v SHOYE VENTURE LIMITED SC 36/2012
Parties
Appellant: Manukau Golf Club Incorporated; Respondent: Shoye Venture Limited
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
18 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Supreme Court / Leave to Appeal Granted
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; questions for appeal approved
Legal Topics
Costs on Appeal, Provision of Reasons by Appellate Court, Leave to Appeal
Civil Procedure Appellate Practice Costs Costs on Appeal Provision of Reasons by Appellate Court Leave to Appeal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manukau Golf Club Incorporated

Appellant

Shoye Venture Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Supreme Court / Leave to Appeal Granted

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to make no order for costs in respect of the appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to give no reasons for its decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the Court of Appeal erred by not making an order for costs and by providing no reasons; the grant reflects the Court's conclusion that these issues raise matters of sufficient general or public importance to warrant the Supreme Court's consideration.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; questions for appeal approved

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Approved questions: (i) whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to make no order for costs in respect of the appeal; (ii) whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to give no reasons