21 Nov 2023
The appeal was filed and served outside the 22-working-day period in s 123(4); by authority of Attorney-General v Howard and subsequent NZ decisions the statutory 22-working-day limit is mandatory and non-extendable by the Court, so the application for extension of time is dismissed; suppression orders from the Tribunal are replicated on the High Court file.
9 Nov 2023
The application for a stay of execution was struck out as an abuse of the Court's process because there were no enforceable orders to be stayed, the applicant did not appeal within the appeal period, the grounds relied on related to separate undetermined proceedings and prior related applications had been struck out; accordingly the stay was refused and costs awarded to respondents.
1 Nov 2023
The application for a stay of execution was struck out as an abuse of process because the applicant did not appeal the prior strike‑out or costs judgments and the time to appeal has expired, meaning the costs orders are final; there is no realistic risk of substantial miscarriage of justice, and allegations in a separate undetermined proceeding cannot alter liability under the final costs orders.
9 Aug 2023
The notice of appeal was struck out in part because the appeal against the Family Court's 9 May 2023 decision was filed out of time (r 20.5 and r 20.4(2)(b)) and constituted an abuse of process; the remainder of the notice (relating to the 30 June 2023 decision) is stayed until the appellant files an amended notice complying with r 20.9(1) and omitting references to the 9 May decision.
9 Feb 2023
The amended statement of claim was struck out because the judicial review was an abuse of process effectively seeking to circumvent statutory appeal rights, it disclosed no reasonably arguable grounds of judicial review (most complaints were appealable or post‑decision implementation matters), and the substantial delay prejudiced the child and other parties.
12 Aug 2022
The stay was refused because the possession order was the inevitable consequence of prior final judgments and a court-ordered sale; the proposed appeal amounted to a collateral attack lacking merit and did not raise new substantive points; alleged procedural or intituling irregularities do not invalidate the prior judgments under the High Court Rules, and purchasers who bought in good faith from the Registrar obtain title not impeached by those issues.
1 Jul 2021
Section 123 of the Human Rights Act 1993 prescribes a mandatory 22 working day limit for appeals and contains no power to extend that time; the High Court Rules require filing and service to 'bring' an appeal; because the appellant did not serve the notice within the statutory period the appeal was not validly brought and must be struck out.
31 Jul 2020
Time under s111(1) does not start to run until affected parties have been given notice that complies with s94, which requires notification of both the unsatisfactory conduct determination and any orders made under s93; therefore the Tribunal erred in concluding that the appeal period commenced on notice of the liability determination alone.
25 Jun 2020
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the delay of approximately 18–22 years was excessive, the explanations did not account adequately for the delay, the passage of time prejudiced the capacity to fairly rehear or test entrapment/search issues, and determining the leave application on the papers was appropriate under s 328.
30 Apr 2020
The appeal was struck out as it was brought out of time: a slip-rule correction does not reset the original order date for appeal time purposes; even on the merits the judge erred in allowing a separate claim under item 9.12 (preparing written submissions) in addition to preparation for hearing but the hearing occupied two half days so the slip correction reducing one item to one half day was itself incorrect; overall the appeal is out of time and would not have succeeded.