New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

High court rules r 7.49

Legal area

Court

6 Nov 2014

GEARY v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION CA472/2014 [2014] NZCA 534 [5 November 2014]

Citation

[2014] NZCA 534
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for review under r 7.49 was dismissed because referring a s 67 leave application to the High Court judge who decided the underlying matter is routine, lawful and does not, without more, create a reasonable apprehension of bias; the judge may determine the leave application and the proper route for challenge is leave to this Court which conducts a de novo assessment.
30 Jun 2014

CREQUER V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CA84/2013 [2014] NZCA 284

Citation

[2014] NZCA 284
Court

Court of Appeal

The extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to give compelling reasons for the delay and, critically, the proposed appeal is without merit; where leave is required the merits are an important discretionary consideration and Graebar and related authorities demonstrate the applicant's grounds are hopeless.
21 Dec 2012

CREQUER V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT HC WN CIV 2012-485-1027

Citation

openlaw-a264d584_3735_465c_b2bf_16aa04d4a26b.pdf
Court

High Court

The application under r 7.49 was dismissed because none of the established grounds for review were met and it is for the Social Security Appeal Authority to settle the questions of law for the appeal; if the court hearing the appeal disagrees it can amend the questions at the substantive hearing, so the appeal should proceed.
21 Oct 2009

CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LTD AND ORS V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC CHCH CIV 2004-409-001596

Citation

openlaw-59c815c4_ed61_44d0_abed_72cb4cdad352.pdf
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because r 7.49 is intended to permit re-examination of truly interlocutory orders, not to allow a judge who is functus officio after delivering final judgment to reopen matters now before the Court of Appeal; accordingly the High Court will not vary or rescind the stay and questions such as the validity of the NOPA should be resolved in the appellate process.

New Zealand Case Law

GEARY v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION CA472/2014 [2014] NZCA 534 [5 November 2014]

CREQUER V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CA84/2013 [2014] NZCA 284

CREQUER V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT HC WN CIV 2012-485-1027

CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LTD AND ORS V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC CHCH CIV 2004-409-001596