SAFARI BBQ PRODUCTS LIMITED v SAFARI VERVAARDIGING CC [2022] NZCA 603
The application for leave to represent the company was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required by authority; the director's stated preference to conserve funds was insufficient to meet the threshold.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] NZCA 603
- Parties
- Applicant: SAFARI BBQ PRODUCTS LIMITED; Respondent: SAFARI VERVAARDIGING CC
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 5 December 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Court of Appeal Appeal (application for Leave to Represent) / Application (on the Papers)
- Outcome
- Application for leave to represent declined
- Legal Topics
- Lay Representation, Leave to Appear, Exceptional Circumstances, Costs
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
SAFARI BBQ PRODUCTS LIMITED
Applicant
SAFARI VERVAARDIGING CC
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Court of Appeal Appeal (application for Leave to Represent) / Application (on the Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the director of a company may personally represent the company in Court of Appeal proceedings
- 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated the exceptional circumstances required to permit lay representation
- 3 Whether any costs order should be made
Ratio Decidendi
The application for leave to represent the company was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required by authority; the director's stated preference to conserve funds was insufficient to meet the threshold.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to represent declined
Orders
- Leave to represent refused
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SAFARI BBQ PRODUCTS LIMITED v SAFARI VERVAARDIGING CC [2022] NZCA 603 [5 December2022]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA643/2022[2022] NZCA 603BETWEEN SAFARI BBQ PRODUCTS LIMITEDApplicantAND SAFARI VERVAARDIGING CCRespondentCourt: Miller and Brown JJCounsel: Applicant in personJ Marcetic for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)5 December 2022 at 11.00 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application is declined.B No order as to costs.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Miller J)[1] Mr Erasmus has applied for leave to represent the applicant. He is its director.He explains that he is capable and prefers to use available resources to build inventoryrather than pay lawyers.[2] This falls far short of the exceptional circumstances required.1[3] The application is declined. No order as to costs.Solicitors:Chapman Tripp, Auckland for Respondent1 Re G J Mannix Ltd [1984] 1 NZLR 309 (CA) at 314 per Cooke J and 316–317 per Somers J; andCommissioner of Inland Revenue Chesterfields Preschools Ltd [2013] NZCA 53, [2013] 2 NZLR679 at [25]–[27] and [34].