8 Nov 2023
An appeal under s 296(2) is limited to questions of law; because the District Court expressly found the statutory criteria to withdraw the guilty plea were not satisfied and rejected the applicant's factual propositions, the proposed grounds were factual not legal and the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, therefore leave to appeal was declined.
24 Feb 2023
Leave to appeal out of time is declined because, although the appellant provided a reasonable explanation for delay (caring for his ill mother), the appeal has no merit: the appellant admitted the offence by guilty plea, accepted the sentence as appropriate, and no miscarriage of justice is established; the court lacks jurisdiction to revisit unrelated past convictions on this appeal.
8 May 2019
Extension of time to file the application for leave was granted because the short delay was satisfactorily explained as solicitor error and caused no prejudice; leave to appeal was declined because the proposed grounds did not disclose an arguable error of law — the Employment Court did not err in its application of interpretive principles to the collective agreements and correctly applied Idea Services in determining donning and doffing constitutes work — therefore there was no sufficient legal question warranting the Court of Appeal's intervention.
5 Mar 2019
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the Sentencing Act s 107 threshold for a discharge without conviction was not met, no question of public or general importance or miscarriage of justice arose, and the s 75 exceptional circumstances test for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was not satisfied.
16 Nov 2015
The Registrar correctly refused to accept the applications because the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear appeals against Court of Appeal decisions refusing to recall earlier decisions; such refusals are not 'decisions on appeal under section 383' within the meaning of the Crimes Act 1961 and allowing the appeal would permit an abuse of process.
15 Feb 2011
The Court recalled and reissued its earlier judgment because it had overlooked that NZ Windfarms abandoned its issue estoppel argument (rendering the Rotorua appeal moot) and because the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the direct appeal from Associate Judge Osborne; on costs, despite some procedural failings, there was no sufficient basis to award increased or indemnity costs and the Court declined to alter the costs orders except to make no order as to costs of the recall application.