13 Jun 2022
Leave to appeal declined because the proposed grounds largely challenge factual findings of the Employment Court (that no personal grievance was raised within the statutory period and that dismissal for patient privacy breaches was justifiable under s103A) and do not raise questions of law of sufficient general or public importance to warrant this Court's intervention.
1 Apr 2022
Although the applicant established cumulative circumstances sufficient to meet the 'special circumstances' threshold under s247(1) by a narrow margin, the substantive judicial review of a s61 absolute discretion is limited to Wednesbury unreasonableness; the proposed review lacked legal merit on the material before the Associate Minister and consequently leave to file out of time was refused; s6 does not govern calculation of the substantive judicial review time limit under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016.
25 Feb 2022
Because s 163 only permits appeals from actual determinations or decisions of the High Court on an appeal, a High Court refusal to grant special leave is not such a determination and the Court has no jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal; further s 162(4)'s 21 day limit for special leave applications is mandatory and cannot be extended, so the out of time application must be dismissed.
16 Jun 2021
A limited stay of the Supreme Court's dismissal was justified to allow ACC to consider the applicant's late review application because this balances the respondent's lack of immediate prejudice against the applicant's interest in preserving limitation-related effects; remittal and release of security for costs were inappropriate; the stay may be discharged if the applicant fails to pursue his appeal diligently or on other grounds.
24 Nov 2020
The Supreme Court refused leave for a direct appeal because the case did not present exceptional circumstances warranting bypassing the Court of Appeal, the High Court's strike-out was based on abuse of process and failure to comply with mandatory statutory requirements and time limits, and jurisdictional questions could be resolved in the ordinary appellate process; an extension of time was granted but leave to appeal was dismissed and no costs were ordered.
18 Nov 2020
The Tribunal cannot, under s96(2), extend the 10 working day appeal period in s117(6) because s96 only applies to time limits relating to proceedings before the Tribunal; therefore there was no jurisdiction to validate a late appeal to the District Court and the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed as not seriously arguable.
30 Oct 2020
The District Court erred in law by treating filing in the wrong registry as an absolute jurisdictional bar under s 117(5) without regard to the District Court Rules (notably r 1.12(2)) which permit correction of procedural errors to avoid defeating justice; accordingly the High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the District Court to determine the appeal on the merits.
11 Aug 2020
The application was struck out because it failed to comply with mandatory statutory requirements (did not identify an applicant group of the type authorised by the Act nor describe the specific coastal areas as required by ss101 and 103), the final amended application introduced essentially different new causes of action after the statutory deadline and was filed for an improper protective purpose to circumvent s100(2), constituting an abuse of process; strike-out under HCR 15.1 and s107 of the Act was therefore justified.
17 Dec 2018
The application for special leave was declined because it was filed outside the mandatory 21‑day period in s162(4) (no jurisdiction to extend); alternatively, even if timely, no arguable question of law arose because the applicant sought to relitigate issues finally determined in prior proceedings and the statutory provisions relied upon (ss117(3) and 117(3B)) did not support her case.
31 Jul 2018
Application for special leave was refused because it was filed outside the statutory 21-day period and the High Court has no jurisdiction to extend that time; alternatively, on the merits the proposed grounds raise factual findings (credibility and expert evidence) not questions of law and the District Court correctly applied the statutory tests and rejected the claimant's evidence, so no arguable legal error existed.