New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appealability of interlocutory decisions

Legal area

Court

8 Nov 2019

BT v FAMILY COURT AT AUCKLAND [2019] NZHC 2929

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2929
Court

High Court

Interim relief was declined because the application lacked pleaded grounds for judicial review, contained no sworn evidence, and did not raise a serious question to be tried; the balance of convenience and the paramount duty to the welfare and timely decision-making for children under the Care of Children Act favored refusal; interlocutory evidential rulings are ordinarily remediable on appeal from the substantive decision and do not justify interruption of Family Court proceedings absent a very clear case of fundamental error.
31 Oct 2018

NORTHERN ACTION GROUP INCORPORATED v THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION [2018] NZHC 2823

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2823
Court

High Court

The Commission's affected area declaration was a separate, published and determinative decision and therefore appealable. However Northern Action's attempt to appeal that declaration out of time failed: the extension application was refused because the delay (about 18 months), inadequate justification and prejudice to the Commission made an extension contrary to the interests of justice. The Court refused to order disclosure of the Commission's communications with its expert advisers or further communications with Auckland Council beyond the comprehensive material already lodged because those…
31 Mar 2015

AUCKLAND COUNCIL v ABRAHAM & ORS [2015] NZHC 622

Citation

[2015] NZHC 622
Court

High Court

The Court admitted the Paykel affidavit as highly relevant, found the Tribunal had not been provided material evidence and therefore failed to take a relevant matter into account and reached a plainly wrong decision; on the basis of the admitted evidence the Council established a tenable claim that silicone sealant incompatibility with polypropylene corner soakers caused the jamb/sill failures and ordered Plaster Systems Ltd to be joined as a respondent.
27 Sept 2013

SMITH v SMITH [2013] NZHC 2536

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2536
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because, even if a s 54 recommendation may be reviewable or appealable in principle, the recommendation in this case did not irretrievably affect the appellant's or the child's rights: the appellant will have a full opportunity to be heard and to advance the same grounds in opposition to the guardianship application and at the substantive hearing, so no prejudice occurred requiring early appellate intervention; costs were reserved.
28 Apr 2005

D G S SIMES V M TENNANT CA CA257/04

Citation

openlaw-4a1f7c8b_b714_4d86_a0b2_20cb53921b3a.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that a High Court decision granting an extension of time under r 704(3) is a 'judgment, decree or order' within s 66 of the Judicature Act 1908 and therefore is appealable to the Court of Appeal; consequently the application to strike out or dismiss the appeal was dismissed, subject to the usual high threshold for overturning discretionary rulings.

New Zealand Case Law

BT v FAMILY COURT AT AUCKLAND [2019] NZHC 2929

NORTHERN ACTION GROUP INCORPORATED v THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION [2018] NZHC 2823

AUCKLAND COUNCIL v ABRAHAM & ORS [2015] NZHC 622

SMITH v SMITH [2013] NZHC 2536

D G S SIMES V M TENNANT CA CA257/04