New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reinstatement of appeal

Legal area

Court

20 Nov 2023

MCLEAN v R [2023] NZCA 578

Citation

[2023] NZCA 578
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court set aside the notice of abandonment and reinstated the appeal for the limited purpose of considering late-emerging s 27 mitigation because the applicant's late comprehension of childhood abuse was an unusual and explicable circumstance arising from custodial rehabilitation access, and the interests of justice in allowing limited review outweighed finality and the limited additional burden on the Court.
13 Jul 2020

JAVED v R [2020] NZCA 282

Citation

[2020] NZCA 282
Court

Court of Appeal

Because the appellant mistakenly intended to seek an adjournment, the Crown did not oppose withdrawal, and allowing withdrawal was in the interests of justice, the Court granted leave to withdraw the notice of abandonment and reinstated the appeal.
22 Nov 2013

ERWOOD V MAXTED & ANOR CA567/2007 [2013] NZCA 573

Citation

[2013] NZCA 573
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the applicant's costs application because the 27 March 2012 judgment finally resolved costs in CA567/2007 by ordering the applicant to pay the first respondents' costs; the Supreme Court's reversal of the earlier interlocutory costs order did not entitle the applicant to an award of costs in this Court, and the existing security for costs ($4,740) is to be released to the first respondents once their costs and disbursements relating to CA567/2007 are calculated.
16 Apr 2013

TUCHOLSKI V DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL HC DUN CIV 2013-412-000088

Citation

openlaw-0b550a0a_28e1_48c8_9364_8d4f37a118a3.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court reinstated the appeal despite the deeming provision in s 74 because the failure to comply with the security order was short lived, was promptly remedied once discovered, and refusal to reinstate would produce a miscarriage of justice; the respondent was entitled to costs on the standard basis but not indemnity, and payment of those costs was to be held in court pending final determination with leave to the parties to make submissions on timing.
13 Dec 2010

Keall v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 225
Court

District Court

Rule 12.6 (formerly r485) only authorises reinstatement where proceedings were struck out for non-appearance and on good cause; it does not authorise reinstatement of appeals that were withdrawn with the applicant's consent. Therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction to reinstate this withdrawn appeal and the reinstatement application must be refused.
3 Dec 2010

Sheehan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 220
Court

District Court

The application to set aside the dismissal was refused because the appellant failed to demonstrate non-receipt of notice or a sufficient excuse for non-appearance, the appeal had little prospect of success given the aged specialist assessment and lack of contradicting expert evidence, and no miscarriage of justice was shown; therefore the Court declined to exercise its discretionary power to reinstate the appeal.
20 Jul 2010

Duncan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 102
Court

District Court

The judgment dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution was recalled and the appeal reinstated because the applicant is a minor with severe disability, new legal representation and legal aid arrangements have been put in place, and counsel seeks necessary medical opinion, making it just to allow the substantive issue to be heard.
20 May 2009

PRIOR AND ANOR V HADEN HC AK CIV-2008-404-008134

Citation

openlaw-a63adfec_c884_437b_99b5_f2a84a3e81f5.pdf
Court

High Court

The application to reinstate the appeal was dismissed because the applicants failed to demonstrate that non-reinstatement would produce a miscarriage of justice; on balance the prejudice to the respondent from further delay and the ongoing threat of contempt outweighed the applicants' prejudice, and potential remedies (costs and appeals from substantive decisions) meant reinstatement was not justified.
16 Sept 2008

Sykes v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 223
Court

District Court

The Court found that the withdrawal notation was made in error due to a misunderstanding and, exercising its discretion, reinstated the appeal because it was never intended to be withdrawn and the respondent did not oppose reinstatement.
4 Sept 2007

Henry v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2007] NZACC 205
Court

District Court

The application to reinstate the withdrawn appeal is refused because subsequent primary and review decisions on extenuating circumstances have been made, rendering the earlier appeal moot; reinstatement could only have led to remittal for a primary decision which has already been taken, so reinstatement would achieve no result.