3 Aug 2023
Special leave to appeal was declined because the matters advanced were factual in nature, the District Court's decision declining to accept the accountant's letter without corroborating documentation was open on the evidence, and no arguable question of law or extraordinary factor was shown following the refusal of leave below.
31 Aug 2020
The Court held there was no error in treating the extension application as an application for special leave because the statutory threshold in s124(3) was not met, there was no unfairness or prejudice to the applicant, and consequently the application for recall was declined.
13 Sept 2018
Special leave was declined because no arguable question of law of general or public importance was established; the tenancy was periodic so s 7 did not apply; the evidence supported the Tribunal's finding that the s 51(1)(d) 90-day notice was valid and not retaliatory; and the applicant's concessions at the Tribunal precluded the challenges.
21 Mar 2018
The Registrar was correct to decline the application because any second appeal from the District Court must be determined by the High Court and is final; there is no provision for a further appeal to the Court of Appeal in these circumstances, and the applicant failed to comply with directions to apply to the High Court for leave to appeal.
5 Feb 2018
The application to amend and to recall the minute to join the appeals was dismissed because the applicant did not show a risk of injustice or sufficient justification for joinder, the proposed amendments were inapt and potentially beyond the Court's jurisdiction as the issues were not before the lower judge, and joinder was not shown to be more efficient given the controversial scope of CA12/2018.
19 Jun 2017
Special leave to extend time was granted because the applicant provided an acceptable explanation for delay (medical incapacity and delay obtaining transcript), the delay was modest and caused no specific prejudice beyond that inherent in delay, and the proposed appeal raised arguable points (issues of economic duress, unclear contractual documentation, and whether liability was personal or corporate) such that granting an extension met the overall interests of justice.
1 Dec 2014
The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the proceedings commenced in April 2012 are governed by s144 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; the applicant had to obtain High Court leave before seeking leave or special leave from this Court.
6 Nov 2014
The application for special leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of law of general or public importance; the District Court judge's direction for a rehearing before a differently constituted Tribunal was an exercise of discretion under s 118(1)(a) and no legal error was demonstrated affecting that direction.
25 Feb 2014
The Court refused the extension of time and, were it required, special leave because the 26 year delay was extraordinary and unjustified, the delay caused likely prejudice to ACC through loss of records and the impracticability of adjudicating decades‑old claims, and the proposed appeal raised no tenable question of law or matter of public importance that would justify allocating scarce judicial resources to a late, fact‑based challenge.
17 Apr 2013
Extension of time to file the special leave application is granted; special leave is refused because the applicant's grounds do not raise arguable questions of law of sufficient general or public importance under s124—procedural and apparent bias complaints are not questions of law for this Court and the statutory transitional questions are either unarguable or of historical interest only.