New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consolidation of appeals

Legal area

Court

9 Sept 2021

POWER v WHITE [2021] NZCA 454

Citation

[2021] NZCA 454
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the applicant failed to identify an arguable error of law or fact of sufficient general or personal importance to justify the further delay of an appeal; consolidation of the six appeals against a single Family Court decision was appropriate; absence of physical files did not invalidate the telephone conference or the directions including the standard security for costs order; any minor categorisation issue could be addressed under the slip rule.
10 Oct 2014

GARY OWEN BURGESS v TSB BANK LIMITED [2014] NZSC 141

Citation

[2014] NZSC 141
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the application raised no matter of general or public importance, there was no risk of substantial miscarriage of justice (the substantive issues can be raised in the first appeal for which security has been paid), and the Registrar correctly had no discretion to extend time to apply to reduce or waive security for costs such that White J was entitled to refuse an extension of time.
16 Jul 2014

Duffy v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2014] NZACC 168
Court

District Court

The Court concluded the appropriate course is to consolidate and hear the two related appeals together; it recorded that the Clause 47 argument is no longer viable in light of Murray v ACC, leaving the question of potential earner status and assessment of potential loss (notably for ages 18–26 and possible future assessments) as the substantive issues to be resolved; accordingly the Court directed further submissions on Section 105 and listed the matters for joint hearing.
26 May 2014

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE [2014] NZSC 60

Citation

[2014] NZSC 60
Court

Supreme Court

The recall application is dismissed because no authority shows it was impermissible for the Court to dismiss the two applications in a single judgment and there are no cogent grounds to warrant recall.
11 Jun 2013

Kogler v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 164
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the District Court was bound by the High Court decision in Vandy, which addressed the statutory question under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 and precluded granting leave in the circumstances before the Court.
22 Jul 2010

FIRST SOVEREIGN TRUST AND V SECRETARY FOR INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2010-485-828

Citation

openlaw-fd6a671e_ba3f_41c9_ab3f_52e3f7ba16d6.pdf
Court

High Court

Where administrative/licensing proceedings are entirely co-extensive with criminal charges and would replicate the criminal inquiry, proceeding with the administrative appeal before the criminal verdict would be an abuse of process; accordingly the Commission must adjourn the Trust's appeal until the related criminal proceedings conclude when the replication and integrity risks outweigh departmental supervisory interests (trial imminent here).
14 May 2009

T & T DRAINAGE LIMITED V JOHN ALFRED RENNELL AND JUDITH PENELOPE RENNELL HC AK CIV-2009-404-001506

Citation

openlaw-727a17ac_73c4_426f_9e77_01011516d275.pdf
Court

High Court

The cross-appeal procedure in r 20.11 does not apply to a separate counterclaim against a third party in which the appellant has no interest; a separate notice of appeal was required, but in the exercise of discretion the court granted leave to appeal out of time because the explanation for delay was satisfactory, the delay was not excessive, there was little prejudice and the proposed appeal raised an arguable point.
13 Mar 2008

LIONEL JOHN SILBERY V ANGELA RUTH SILBERY-DEE, GEOFFREY DAVID SILBERY, MICHAEL BASIL-JONES (AS TRUSTEES) CA CA676/07

Citation

openlaw-a7baa674_b3de_4788_b2d0_846b6b7182a1.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Special leave to appeal out of time was granted because the quantum judgment, delivered after the substantive judgment, was necessary for the applicant to decide to appeal and respondents consented; appeals are to be consolidated and procedural steps ordered accordingly.
19 Jun 2000

Jones v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2000] NZACC 145
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was granted because the judge was satisfied that questions of law were raised on both the procedural point of recall and the substantive point of entitlement to continuing cover for persons diagnosed with fibromyalgia, and because the issues were common to related appeals which should be heard together.