New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Timeliness of appeal

Legal area

Court

21 Sept 2022

DENNIS ARTHUR SMITH v IAN JAMES PLOWMAN [2022] NZSC 109

Citation

[2022] NZSC 109
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the recall decision did not raise matters meeting the statutory criteria for leave to the Supreme Court, there is no jurisdiction to appeal the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant leave, and the courts correctly concluded assets were available to the applicant so fee waiver was not justified; the recall application was an abuse of process to relitigate merits.
11 Jul 2018

NGAI TE HAPU INCORPORATED v BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 1710

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1710
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed because Ngāi Te Hapū Inc failed to pay ordered security for costs and the appeal had no realistic prospect of success: most substantive grounds were out of time, many alleged errors were factual evaluations outside a s299 appeal, and the Environment Court lawfully concluded it could not require full removal of the wreck as a condition of a consent to abandon; the Environment Court properly considered expert evidence, Māori and Treaty matters and imposed lawful, reasonably related conditions including monitoring and offsets.
15 Oct 2009

Sinclair v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 174
Court

District Court

The 30 January 2008 letter and the 17 April 2008 correspondence were informational responses about ACC's investigative and operational conduct and did not constitute "decisions" under s6(g) of the Act giving rise to review rights; accordingly the Reviewer correctly found no jurisdiction to review the 30 January letter, the Reviewer's 17 April decision was not appealable to the District Court under s149(3), the Reviewer's appointment was valid under the statutory delegation/contract framework and Crown Entities Act presumptions, and the appeal was filed one day out of time with no justificatio…
17 Nov 2008

BURKE AND BURKE V ASL MORTGAGES LIMITED SC 68/2008

Citation

SC 68/2008
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the proposed appeal did not raise a question of law of public or general importance nor a plain error of fact suggesting a miscarriage of justice; the Registrar correctly refused to waive the filing fee for the same reason, and the leave application was also out of time with no adequate explanation for delay.
25 Jul 2008

Cleary v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2008] NZACC 175
Court

District Court

The appeal was struck out under s161(3)(b) because the appellant failed to prosecute the appeal with due diligence, failed to comply with multiple registry directions, did not respond to notices and did not appear, leaving no basis to keep the matter on the court roll.
16 Aug 2007

DOWNER CONSTRUCTION (NZ) LTD V SILVERFIELD DEVELOPMENTS LTD CA CA65/06

Citation

openlaw-881529fa_2469_4bdd_aac2_de6ccdb2a771.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

All three applications were dismissed: no special leave to appeal out of time was granted against the entry of the awards as judgments; Randerson J did not refuse leave on other questions so there was no jurisdiction to hear a cl 5(5) appeal; none of Downer's proposed questions met the criteria for leave under cl 5(5) or special leave under cl 5(6); an applicant cannot widen the issues on a second appeal beyond the essence of the questions for which High Court leave was granted.
15 Sept 2006

Davis v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2006] NZACC 227
Court

District Court

The appeal is dismissed because it was filed eleven months out of time and was not prosecuted with due diligence; the respondent's application to dismiss for want of prosecution was granted.
10 Oct 2003

Bronlund v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 253
Court

District Court

Leave to file the notice of appeal out of time was granted because the affidavit evidence provided a sufficient explanation for delay (stroke-related incapacity) and the 4 August 2001 letter was capable of an equivocal interpretation so the court was not satisfied there was an intention to abuse process; however, because a conclusive default judgment of 9 July 2002 exists which would likely estop the appellant, leave was granted only on the condition that the appellant file and serve an application to set aside the default judgment within 21 days and prosecute it promptly, with the strike-out…
10 Apr 2003

McGregor v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2003] NZACC 59
Court

District Court

Technical deficiencies in earlier IRPs did not invalidate the rehabilitation actually provided or the later agreed IRP in substance; the appellant had accepted the interventions and the respondent lawfully proceeded with the Work Capacity Assessment which established capacity for work, therefore cessation of weekly compensation was correctly imposed and the appeal is dismissed.