12 May 2020
EA v RENNIE COX LAWYERS NO 2 [2020] NZHC 958
- Citation
- [2020] NZHC 958
- Court
- High Court
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed appeal did not raise a question capable of bona fide and serious argument nor an interest of sufficient importance to justify the cost and delay; the District Court's retrospective extension of time was inconsistent with the purpose of the Rules and the Limitation Act and plainly wrong, the stay did not suspend the limitation period, and finality required refusing further extension; costs were awarded to Ms EA on a 1B basis.
- Extension of time
- Deemed discontinuance (r 2.39 district court rules 2009)
- Limitation act 2010
- Leave to appeal
- Retrospective judgment by default
- Effect of stays on limitation periods