SOUTHWEST CONTRACTING (2002) LIMITED v POWER FARMING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2022] NZCA 613
Leave for the director to represent the company was refused because no exceptional circumstances were shown; the company must be legally represented and the applicant's reasons (including waiting to see if the appeal succeeds) were insufficient.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] NZCA 613
- Parties
- Appellant: Southwest Contracting (2002) Limited; Respondent: Power Farming New Zealand Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 7 December 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Leave for Director to Represent Company; Decision on Papers; Appeal Pending (oral Hearing Anticipated)
- Outcome
- Application for leave to represent the appellant declined; no order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- Lay Representation of Company, Leave to Self Represent, Admission of New Evidence on Appeal, Oral Hearing Procedure
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Southwest Contracting (2002) Limited
Appellant
Power Farming New Zealand Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Leave for Director to Represent Company; Decision on Papers; Appeal Pending (oral Hearing Anticipated)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a company director/shareholder may represent the company in this Court
- 2 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to permit lay representation
- 3 Whether new evidence may be filed on appeal without leave
Ratio Decidendi
Leave for the director to represent the company was refused because no exceptional circumstances were shown; the company must be legally represented and the applicant's reasons (including waiting to see if the appeal succeeds) were insufficient.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to represent the appellant declined; no order as to costs.
Orders
- Leave to represent the appellant (company) is declined
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SOUTHWEST CONTRACTING (2002) LIMITED v POWER FARMING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2022]NZCA 613 [7 December 2022]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA526/2022[2022] NZCA 613BETWEEN SOUTHWEST CONTRACTING (2002)LIMITEDAppellantAND POWER FARMING NEW ZEALANDLIMITEDRespondentCourt: Miller and Brown JJCounsel: Appellant in personJ A MacGillivray for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)7 December 2022 at 2.30 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to represent the appellant is declined.B No order as to costs.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Miller J)[1] Mr Forde, the appellant's director and shareholder, has sought leave torepresent the company, saying he is in substance a sole trader.[2] There are no exceptional circumstances justifying this course of action.1 It isunwarranted optimism to wait until the appeal succeeds, as he suggests, before takinglegal advice. It is also apparent that Mr Forde believes the appeal will be heard on thepapers. That is incorrect. There will be an oral hearing at which the Court will needto be persuaded that the case should be permitted to continue despite the unavailabilityof the machines at issue and witnesses. He has also sought to file what appears to benew evidence on appeal. That requires leave of the Court.[3] The application is declined. No order as to costs.Solicitors:Tompkins Wake, Hamilton 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].