New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Case on appeal

Legal area

Court

18 Feb 2021

STRINGER v CRAIG [2021] NZCA 19

Citation

[2021] NZCA 19
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court granted the extension because the appellant's non-compliance was a genuine misunderstanding promptly remedied by an interlocutory application, the respondents did not identify any incremental prejudice caused by that procedural delay, and the appeal was not so clearly hopeless as to warrant refusal of an extension; accordingly time to file the case on appeal was extended to 19 March 2021 and no costs were ordered.
23 Nov 2020

MAHON v WAIMAURI LTD [2020] NZCA 580

Citation

[2020] NZCA 580
Court

Court of Appeal

Applying the interests of justice factors (length and reason for delay, conduct, prejudice, significance of issues) the Court concluded the delay was not so grave as to refuse relief, the explanation was acceptable, prejudice to respondents was not decisive and the appeal was not clearly hopeless; consequently extension was granted and strict compliance with r 43 required by 15 December 2020.
31 Oct 2019

MACHIRUS v CURRIE [2019] NZCA 525

Citation

[2019] NZCA 525
Court

Court of Appeal

Balancing the prejudice to respondents against the applicant's documented medical condition and the realistic prospect he can obtain funds to instruct counsel, the Court granted a short extension as in the interests of justice; failure to file a complying case on appeal by the specified date will result in deemed abandonment.
24 Sept 2017

DERMOT NOTTINGHAM v MALTESE CAT LIMITED [2018] NZCA 387

Citation

[2018] NZCA 387
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time to file the case on appeal was declined because the appellant gave an inadequate explanation for delay, failed to progress the appeal by filing the case on appeal or seeking a hearing date within the extended time, limitation is ordinarily a trial issue and the abuse of process point lacked a first instance determination; lay litigant status and health did not justify non‑compliance with court directions.
20 Sept 2004

WISELINE CORPORATION LIMITED And Anor V RITA HOCKEY AS EXECUTRIX IN THE ESTATE OF RUSSELL GARLAND HOCKEY And Anor CA CA4/03

Citation

openlaw-32fe1359_76d9_4764_a5fb_f6f927e160c5.pdf
Court

Unknown Court

The appellants pursued appellate steps that reasonably required the second respondents to incur legal costs; the Court exercised its discretion to award costs to the respondents and quantified those costs at one-quarter of the Court's usual daily rate, resulting in awards of $1,500 on each appeal and striking out CA4/03 and dismissing the extension application in CA245/02.

New Zealand Case Law

STRINGER v CRAIG [2021] NZCA 19

MAHON v WAIMAURI LTD [2020] NZCA 580

MACHIRUS v CURRIE [2019] NZCA 525

DERMOT NOTTINGHAM v MALTESE CAT LIMITED [2018] NZCA 387

WISELINE CORPORATION LIMITED And Anor V RITA HOCKEY AS EXECUTRIX IN THE ESTATE OF RUSSELL GARLAND HOCKEY And Anor CA CA4/03