New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deemed abandonment of appeal

Legal area

Court

17 Feb 2023

D (SC 126/2022) v RMC [2023] NZSC 6

Citation

[2023] NZSC 6
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeals were without merit and hopeless: the underlying tort claims were legally untenable and appeared vexatious, the procedural defects (deemed abandonment for failure to provide security for costs) showed no material change of circumstance to justify an extension of time, and the matters raised lacked general or public importance and did not risk a miscarriage of justice.
2 Sept 2021

POWER v WHITE [2021] NZHC 2291

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2291
Court

High Court

Because security for costs had been validly ordered and was not paid despite repeated directions and warnings, s126 mandated that the appeals were deemed abandoned; consequently leave to appeal was inappropriate and refused, and the request for a transcript was properly declined consistent with authority.
20 Oct 2020

JEREMY JAMES MCGUIRE v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2020] NZSC 114

Citation

[2020] NZSC 114
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal involved routine application of Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules to specific facts, raised no matter of general or public importance warranting this Court's intervention, did not justify revisiting Reekie, and did not demonstrate a miscarriage of justice; accordingly leave is declined and costs awarded.
29 Oct 2015

BURGESS v BEAVEN [2015] NZHC 2659

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2659
Court

High Court

The appeal was deemed abandoned because the appellant failed to pay the security for costs required by the High Court by the specified deadline; under s74 District Courts Act 1947 (as applied) non-compliance with a security order results in deemed abandonment, therefore there is no appeal before the Court and the High Court proceedings are at an end.
14 May 2010

SHIRLEY-ANNE CARVER AND ORS V NEIL CLARENCE JACK AND ANOR CA268/2009

Citation

openlaw-c714f4e0_d049_4fb7_8968_b75c2be9454e.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The court refused the adjournment and declined the extension of time under r 43 because the applicants' explanation for delay was not compelling, the Official Assignee had refused consent to continuation due to lack of merit following the applicants' bankruptcy, and the underlying summary judgment gave the proposed appeal little prospect of success; accordingly the appeal was treated as abandoned under r 43 and respondents awarded costs.
24 May 2007

GREER V MANAGER, CUSTODIAL SERVICES, AUCKLAND PRISON & ANOR CA CA102/06

Citation

openlaw-b6ad5e40_74d5_425e_9124_aad56c45b806.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a fresh appeal out of time under r29(4) was refused because the applicant gave no sufficient explanation for the delay, the proposed appeal was without merit based on an uninformative notice of appeal, and any relief would have no practical benefit; Sexton sets a high threshold and the discretion must not undermine r43 objectives.

New Zealand Case Law

D (SC 126/2022) v RMC [2023] NZSC 6

POWER v WHITE [2021] NZHC 2291

JEREMY JAMES MCGUIRE v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2020] NZSC 114

BURGESS v BEAVEN [2015] NZHC 2659

SHIRLEY-ANNE CARVER AND ORS V NEIL CLARENCE JACK AND ANOR CA268/2009

GREER V MANAGER, CUSTODIAL SERVICES, AUCKLAND PRISON & ANOR CA CA102/06