GIBSON V MINTER ELLISON RUDD WATTS CA CA202/05

GIBSON V MINTER ELLISON RUDD WATTS CA CA202/05 4 April 2006IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA202/05 CA33/06BETWEEN NEVILLE JAMES GIBSON Appellant AND MINTER ELLISON RUDD WATTS Respondent Court: Hammond, Chambers and O'Regan JJ Counsel: N J Gibson in person P J L Hunt and R Scott for Respondent Judgment: 4 April 2006 (On the papers)JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A Application for special leave to appeal in relation to CA33/06 is granted. B Application for extension of time for filing of the case on appeal in relation to CA202/05 to 21 April 2006 is granted. The following timetable orders are made: 1. The appellant must file and serve as amended grounds of appeal by 31 March 2006. 2. The appellant must provide to the respondent by 7 April 2006 his final list of the documents that he proposes to include in the case on appeal.3. The respondent is to provide to the appellant its feedback on the proposed list of documents, with any request for additional documents to be included by 14 April 2006. REASONS(Given by O'Regan J)Introduction[1] The appellant seeks special leave to appeal out of time against a costs judgment: CA33/06. The intended respondent consents to the bringing of the appeal out of time, and the Court is satisfied that there has been no prejudice occasioned by the respondent by the late filing of the notice of appeal. The late filing of the appeal appears to have arisen from a mistake on the part of the appellant as to the period within which the appeal had to be filed. In the circumstances the Court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to grant special leave to bring the appeal out of time. [2] The appellant has also sought leave to extend the time for the filing of the case on appeal in CA202/05. The respondent has consented to the extension being granted. The Court is satisfied an order should be made, and extends the time and makes the timetable orders set out above. [3] The respondent initially suggested that the two appeals should be heard consecutively, given the substantial overlap in the subject matter, but has since indicated this would not be appropriate. We leave it to the Registrar to set the fixtures for the appeals, after discussion with the appellant and counsel for the respondents if she considers it necessary.Solicitors: McElroys, Auckland for Respondent