SKELTON v HOWCROFT [2017] NZHC 2941

SKELTON v HOWCROFT [2017] NZHC 2941

The High Court has jurisdiction to order security for costs in respect of an application for pre-commencement discovery under r 8.20; the applicant's request for an extension of time to apply to rescind the security for costs order was without merit; there is no issue of public importance or novel question of law warranting leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, so leave was refused.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 2941
Parties
Intending Plaintiff: Bevin Hall Skelton; First Intended Defendant: Charles Michael Howcroft; Second Intended Defendant: Daran Nair; Third Intended Defendant: Charles Henry Bird
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application (leave to Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal and Extension of Time in the High Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; application for extension of time dismissed.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Jurisdiction, Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal
Civil Procedure Appeal Pre Commencement Discovery Security for Costs Jurisdiction Extension of Time Leave to Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bevin Hall Skelton

Intending Plaintiff

Charles Michael Howcroft

First Intended Defendant

Daran Nair

Second Intended Defendant

Charles Henry Bird

Third Intended Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application (leave to Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal and Extension of Time in the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to order security for costs in respect of an application for pre-commencement discovery under r 8.20
  2. 2 Whether an extension of time should be granted to apply to rescind or vary the security for costs order
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court has jurisdiction to order security for costs in respect of an application for pre-commencement discovery under r 8.20; the applicant's request for an extension of time to apply to rescind the security for costs order was without merit; there is no issue of public importance or novel question of law warranting leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, so leave was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; application for extension of time dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal refused
  • Application for extension of time to apply to rescind the security for costs orders dismissed