New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Reinstatement of appeal

  • 20 Nov 2023

    MCLEAN v R [2023] NZCA 578

    Citation
    [2023] NZCA 578
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Court set aside the notice of abandonment and reinstated the appeal for the limited purpose of considering late-emerging s 27 mitigation because the applicant's late comprehension of childhood abuse was an unusual and explicable circumstance arising from custodial rehabilitation access, and the interests of justice in allowing limited review outweighed finality and the limited additional burden on the Court.

    • Withdrawal of abandonment of appeal
    • Reinstatement of appeal
    • Mitigation under s 27 sentencing act 2002
    • Finality of criminal proceedings

  • 13 Jul 2020

    JAVED v R [2020] NZCA 282

    Citation
    [2020] NZCA 282
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    Because the appellant mistakenly intended to seek an adjournment, the Crown did not oppose withdrawal, and allowing withdrawal was in the interests of justice, the Court granted leave to withdraw the notice of abandonment and reinstated the appeal.

    • Withdrawal of notice of abandonment
    • Reinstatement of appeal
    • Adjournment versus abandonment

  • 22 Nov 2013

    ERWOOD V MAXTED & ANOR CA567/2007 [2013] NZCA 573

    Citation
    [2013] NZCA 573
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Court dismissed the applicant's costs application because the 27 March 2012 judgment finally resolved costs in CA567/2007 by ordering the applicant to pay the first respondents' costs; the Supreme Court's reversal of the earlier interlocutory costs order did not entitle the applicant to an award of costs in this Court, and the existing security for costs ($4,740) is to be released to the first respondents once their costs and disbursements relating to CA567/2007 are calculated.

    • Security for costs
    • Strike out for non-payment of security
    • Costs orders
    • Reinstatement of appeal
    • Sealing of judgment

  • 16 Apr 2013

    TUCHOLSKI V DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL HC DUN CIV 2013-412-000088

    Citation
    openlaw-0b550a0a_28e1_48c8_9364_8d4f37a118a3.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The Court reinstated the appeal despite the deeming provision in s 74 because the failure to comply with the security order was short lived, was promptly remedied once discovered, and refusal to reinstate would produce a miscarriage of justice; the respondent was entitled to costs on the standard basis but not indemnity, and payment of those costs was to be held in court pending final determination with leave to the parties to make submissions on timing.

    • Security for costs
    • Abandonment of appeal
    • Reinstatement of appeal
    • Costs (indemnity and standard)
    • High court rules r 20.13
    • District courts act s 74

  • 13 Dec 2010

    Keall v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2010] NZACC 225
    Court
    District Court

    Rule 12.6 (formerly r485) only authorises reinstatement where proceedings were struck out for non-appearance and on good cause; it does not authorise reinstatement of appeals that were withdrawn with the applicant's consent. Therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction to reinstate this withdrawn appeal and the reinstatement application must be refused.

    • Reinstatement of appeal
    • Withdrawal of proceedings
    • Jurisdiction
    • District court rules

  • 3 Dec 2010

    Sheehan v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2010] NZACC 220
    Court
    District Court

    The application to set aside the dismissal was refused because the appellant failed to demonstrate non-receipt of notice or a sufficient excuse for non-appearance, the appeal had little prospect of success given the aged specialist assessment and lack of contradicting expert evidence, and no miscarriage of justice was shown; therefore the Court declined to exercise its discretionary power to reinstate the appeal.

    • Set aside judgment
    • Reinstatement of appeal
    • Non-appearance
    • Whole person impairment assessment
    • Independence allowance
    • Lump sum compensation

  • 20 Jul 2010

    Duncan v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2010] NZACC 102
    Court
    District Court

    The judgment dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution was recalled and the appeal reinstated because the applicant is a minor with severe disability, new legal representation and legal aid arrangements have been put in place, and counsel seeks necessary medical opinion, making it just to allow the substantive issue to be heard.

    • Reinstatement of appeal
    • Want of prosecution
    • Legal aid
    • Medical misadventure
    • Representation of a minor

  • 20 May 2009

    PRIOR AND ANOR V HADEN HC AK CIV-2008-404-008134

    Citation
    openlaw-a63adfec_c884_437b_99b5_f2a84a3e81f5.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The application to reinstate the appeal was dismissed because the applicants failed to demonstrate that non-reinstatement would produce a miscarriage of justice; on balance the prejudice to the respondent from further delay and the ongoing threat of contempt outweighed the applicants' prejudice, and potential remedies (costs and appeals from substantive decisions) meant reinstatement was not justified.

    • Reinstatement of appeal
    • Interlocutory discovery orders
    • Court's inherent jurisdiction
    • Miscarriage of justice
    • Costs

  • 16 Sept 2008

    Sykes v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2008] NZACC 223
    Court
    District Court

    The Court found that the withdrawal notation was made in error due to a misunderstanding and, exercising its discretion, reinstated the appeal because it was never intended to be withdrawn and the respondent did not oppose reinstatement.

    • Reinstatement of appeal
    • Withdrawal
    • Mistake
    • Court discretion

  • 4 Sept 2007

    Henry v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2007] NZACC 205
    Court
    District Court

    The application to reinstate the withdrawn appeal is refused because subsequent primary and review decisions on extenuating circumstances have been made, rendering the earlier appeal moot; reinstatement could only have led to remittal for a primary decision which has already been taken, so reinstatement would achieve no result.

    • Reinstatement of appeal
    • Extenuating circumstances
    • Late filing of review
    • Mootness
    • Remittal to primary decision maker