ROSANNE ARMITAGE v STYLO MEDICAL SERVICES LIMITED [2023] NZSC 155
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal related solely to the specific facts of the underlying litigation, did not raise matters of general or public or commercial importance, the alleged errors were not shown to be sustainable such that a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] NZSC 155
- Parties
- Applicant: Rosanne Armitage; Respondent: Stylo Medical Services Limited
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 30 November 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Leave Application
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal Criteria, Waiver of Security for Costs, Standard of Review, Strike Out or Stay Liquidation Proceedings
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rosanne Armitage
Applicant
Stylo Medical Services Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Leave Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against refusal to waive or reduce security for costs
- 2 Whether the Judge erred by failing to conduct a de novo assessment of waiver criteria or applying an incorrect standard of review
- 3 Whether the proposed appeal raises matters of general or public importance or commercial significance
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal related solely to the specific facts of the underlying litigation, did not raise matters of general or public or commercial importance, the alleged errors were not shown to be sustainable such that a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred, and given the parties' protracted history the respondent was entitled to the protection of security for costs.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- No waiver or reduction of the $7,060 security for costs was granted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
ROSANNE ARMITAGE v STYLO MEDICAL SERVICES LIMITED [2023] NZSC 155 [30 November 2023]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROASC 110/2023[2023] NZSC 155BETWEEN ROSANNE ARMITAGEApplicantAND STYLO MEDICAL SERVICES LIMITEDRespondentCourt: Glazebrook, Ellen France and Kós JJCounsel: Applicant in personR O Parmenter for RespondentJudgment: 30 November 2023JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] An Associate Judge declined to strike out or stay liquidation proceedingsagainst Hum Hospitality Ltd.1 Hum is controlled by the present applicant. She soughtto bring an appeal against that decision in the Court of Appeal. In doing so she soughta waiver of the $7,060 security for costs ordered by the Court or an order reducingsecurity and deferring the date by which it is payable. A Deputy Registrar declinedthat application. A Judge thereafter declined an application for review of theDeputy Registrar's decision.2[2] The applicant submits Hum is a social enterprise advancing wellbeinginitiatives for the community. She complains the Judge failed to make her own1 Stylo Medical Services Ltd v Hum Hospitality Ltd [2023] NZHC 463 (Associate Judge Brittain).2 Armitage v Stylo Medical Services Ltd [2023] NZCA 425 (Courtney J).de novo assessment of the criteria for waiver and made other diverse errors ofreasoning as to the standard for review and considerations relevant to it.Our assessment[3] This proposed appeal from a decision relating to security for costs does notmeet the criteria for leave. It turns entirely on the particular facts of the litigationbelow and neither involves a matter of general or public importance nor a matter ofgeneral commercial significance.3 Nor are we satisfied that the complaints of errorare sustainable such that a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred in thedecision below.4 Given the protracted history of the litigation between these parties,including a number of abandoned appeals, it is orthodox for the respondent to havethe bare protection of security for costs if this appeal proceeds and then either isabandoned or fails.5 It is not therefore necessary in the interests of justice for the courtto hear and determine the appeal.6Result[4] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.Solicitors:Winston Wang & Associates, Auckland for Respondent3 Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(a) and (c).4 Section 74(2)(b).5 Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63, [2014] 1 NZLR 737 at [21].6 Senior Courts Act, s 74(1).