NARESH v NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY [2019] NZHC 1279
Leave to appeal was declined because the appellant failed to identify any arguable question of law; alleged factual misstatements and the complaint about non-receipt of a supplementary affidavit did not raise matters of law sufficient to permit an appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] NZHC 1279
- Parties
- Appellant: Raj Naresh; Respondent: New Zealand Transport Agency
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 7 June 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal Application / Application for Leave Declined at High Court
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal declined
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Question of Law, Interim Judgment, Service of Affidavit
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Raj Naresh
Appellant
New Zealand Transport Agency
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal Application / Application for Leave Declined at High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant identified any question of law sufficient to support an appeal
- 2 Whether the alleged factual errors in the Judge's decision amount to an arguable question of law
- 3 Whether failure to receive a supplementary affidavit prior to the hearing raises an arguable procedural error
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was declined because the appellant failed to identify any arguable question of law; alleged factual misstatements and the complaint about non-receipt of a supplementary affidavit did not raise matters of law sufficient to permit an appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal declined
Orders
- Leave to appeal is declined
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
NARESH v NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY [2019] NZHC 1279 [7 June 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2018-404-002154[2019] NZHC 1279BETWEEN RAJ NARESHAppellantAND NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCYRespondentHearing: 3 May 2019Appearances: Appellant in personH Reid for RespondentJudgment: 7 June 2019FINAL JUDGMENT OF LANG JThis judgment was delivered by me on 7 June 2019 at 3.30 pm,pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDate[1] In an interim judgment delivered on 21 March 2019, I held that as matters thenstood Mr Naresh had not identified any question of law for this Court to consider onappeal.1 As an indulgence I gave Mr Naresh until 9 May 2019 to file and serve furthersubmissions identifying any questions of law he considers the Court should determine.[2] Mr Naresh has now filed a memorandum and affidavit. In the memorandumhe contends I erred in my interim judgment regarding the number of traffic offences,criminal convictions and documented complaints he has accumulated. Whether or notI made any error in that regard is irrelevant to the issue I am now required to determine.[3] The error of law Mr Naresh identifies in relation to the Judge's decision is asfollows:On 7 September 2018 Her Honour Judge A A Sinclair did give an extra timeto the respondent to discuss there [sic] case and made a false and misleadinginformation in her decision regarding a 107 traffic offences 10 criminalconviction and 50 documented complain from ATO[4] In an affidavit filed on 24 April 2019 Mr Naresh also seeks to raise an allegederror of law in relation to a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the respondentwhich Mr Naresh did not receive prior to the hearing date.[5] I do not consider either of these issues raises an arguable question of law so asto enable Mr Naresh to bring an appeal to this Court.[6] The application for leave to appeal is accordingly declined.Lang JSolicitors:Henley-Smith Law (Auckland) for AppellantMeredith Connell (Auckland) for RespondentCounsel: Paul F Chambers1 Naresh v New Zealand Transport Agency [2019] NZHC 523.