1 Dec 2023
The Registrar was correct to refuse to accept the notice of appeal because it was filed after the statutory 10 working day limit under s117(6) RTA; the District Court had no discretion to extend that filing time under r18.4(3) District Court Rules, and a stay or rehearing application does not suspend the running of the appeal period.
4 Mar 2020
The appeal was dismissed because it was filed and not brought within the prescribed time limits, had not been served on any party, and the High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the substantive remedies sought (including changing recorded names), so an extension of time was not justified and the appeal must be dismissed.
5 May 2017
The application for leave to appeal was filed approximately 14 months after notification of the IPT decision, well outside the mandatory 28-day limit in s245(2); because s245 does not permit extension after the 28-day period the Court had no jurisdiction to grant leave out of time and the inherent jurisdiction could not be invoked to bypass the statutory limitation, therefore the application is dismissed.
14 Sept 2016
Leave to appeal was refused because the application was filed outside the time permitted by High Court Rules r 20.3 and, substantively, there were no arguable grounds for appeal in light of settled High Court and Court of Appeal authority; accordingly the earlier review application was dismissed and leave would be refused.
30 Oct 2015
Where extrinsic evidence establishes the moment actual notice was given and the form of the notice complies with statutory requirements, time for filing runs from that actual receipt rather than the statutory deemed date; applying that rule the application was filed out of time and must be dismissed.
14 Jul 2015
Section 117(6) is mandatory in imposing a 10 working day cut‑off, but the 'date of the decision' for that provision is the date on which the parties receive the tribunal's written reasons together with written notice of appeal rights under s104; a notice of appeal filed after the substantive judgment but before formal communication of appeal rights can still be effective provided it falls within the statutory cut‑off.
15 Mar 2011
Delivery of the notice of appeal to the respondent's nominated address for service (the PO Box) on 20 December 2010 constituted effective service within the statutory period under s 123(4); proof of delivery to the designated address overrides the respondent's later opening of the mail and therefore the appeal was brought within time.
23 Sept 2008
The application for leave was filed seven days late beyond the 21 day limit in s162(2); a late application is a nullity and, in any event, the appellant failed to raise a bona fide question of law because his issues were factual; accordingly leave to appeal is dismissed.
14 Mar 2008
Special leave to appeal out of time was granted because the notice of appeal had been filed within the prescribed period and the only failure was late service caused by solicitor oversight; respondents consented and no prejudice was identified, so the Court exercised its discretion under r29(4) to grant leave.
3 Mar 2008
The application for leave under s 18A is dismissed because the matters raised are predominantly factual or evaluative, do not raise questions of law or general principle of sufficient importance under s 18A(2), the tribunal and High Court applied correct legal principles in identifying highest and best use, and the purported council-lawfulness argument was unsupported by evidence and not properly before the tribunal.