WOOTTON v WOOTTON [2020] NZCA 474

The Court declined the application for a stay because the applicant did not establish the necessary grounds to warrant a stay pending determination of the leave to appeal application under s 56(5) of the Senior Courts Act 2016.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2020] NZCA 474
Parties: Applicant: Margaret Ann Wootton; Respondent: Phillip Garry Wootton
Court: Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: New Zealand
Judgment Date: 5 October 2020
Procedural Posture: Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Determination on Application for Stay (on the Papers)
Outcome: Application for a stay of proceedings declined
Legal Topics: Stay of Proceedings, Leave to Appeal, Senior Courts Act 2016 S 56(5)

Civil Procedure Appellate Practice Stay of Proceedings Leave to Appeal Senior Courts Act 2016 S 56(5)

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

Margaret Ann Wootton

Applicant

Phillip Garry Wootton

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Determination on Application for Stay (on the Papers)

Legal Issues

1 Whether a stay of proceedings should be granted pending determination of an application for leave to appeal under s 56(5) of the Senior Courts Act 2016

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for a stay of proceedings declined

Orders

The application for a stay of proceedings pending the determination of an application for leave to appeal under s 56(5) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 from the judgment [2020] NZHC 2584 is declined.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.