W (SC156/2016) v THE FAMILY COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2017] NZSC 35

W (SC156/2016) v THE FAMILY COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2017] NZSC 35

The application for an extension of time to appeal is dismissed because no adequate explanation for the lengthy delay was provided and there are no exceptional circumstances to permit a direct appeal; additionally, s88 of the CYF Act must be read as creating an interim order that lapses on determination, and the decision that the interim order had lapsed was a procedural declaration that did not breach natural justice or affect substantive rights requiring relief.

Citation
(2017) 31 FRNZ 204
Parties
Applicant: W; First Respondent: The Family Court at North Shore; Second Respondent: The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
17 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time to Appeal (leave to Appeal Application) / Supreme Court Determination of Leave/extension Application Following High Court Judicial Review Decision
Outcome
Application for an extension of time to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Restraining Orders, Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 S88 Interpretation, Natural Justice (procedural Fairness), Jurisdictional Decisions on the Papers, Extension of Time to Appeal, Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court
Family Law Administrative Law Child Protection Procedural Law Statutory Interpretation Interim Restraining Orders Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 S88 Interpretation Natural Justice (procedural Fairness) +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W

Applicant

The Family Court at North Shore

First Respondent

The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time to Appeal (leave to Appeal Application) / Supreme Court Determination of Leave/extension Application Following High Court Judicial Review Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim restraining order made under s88 CYF Act is discharged on the making of a declaration that children are in need of care and protection
  2. 2 Whether cancellation or variation of a restraining order requires application under ss127 and 128 CYF Act
  3. 3 Whether failure to serve Mr W with documents relating to discharge of the interim order amounted to a breach of natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time to appeal is dismissed because no adequate explanation for the lengthy delay was provided and there are no exceptional circumstances to permit a direct appeal; additionally, s88 of the CYF Act must be read as creating an interim order that lapses on determination, and the decision that the interim order had lapsed was a procedural declaration that did not breach natural justice or affect substantive rights requiring relief.

Court Disposition

Application for an extension of time to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to second respondent of $2,500