New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Time limits

Legal area

Court

28 Sept 2023

SROUBEK v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2023] NZHC 2717

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2717
Court

High Court

The Facts Appeal Decision was a separate Tribunal decision that triggered the 28‑day period under s245(2) and the applicant's leave application did not encompass it so was out of time; s249(1) does not preclude judicial review where the Tribunal cannot provide effective relief for the challenge (a jurisdictional assessment is required), and on that basis the proper pathway in this case is s247 such that the applicant must proceed under s247 and seek any extension of time for judicial review.
16 Mar 2022

BHAWSAR v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2022] NZCA 60

Citation

[2022] NZCA 60
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for leave to appeal was filed outside the 28‑day period prescribed by s 245(2) and there is no statutory basis for an application for 'leave to appeal out of time'; accordingly the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain or extend time and the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from that nullity, so the application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
22 Feb 2022

LESLIE NORMAN AUSTIN v ROCHE PRODUCTS (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2021] NZSC 62 [16 June 2021]

Citation

LESLIE NORMAN AUSTIN v ROCHE PRODUCTS (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2021] NZSC 62 [16 June 2021]
Court

Supreme Court

The recall was allowed because the applicant had diligently pursued his remedies and, absent amendment, the lapsed stay would defeat his collateral appeal; accordingly the Court reissued its judgment to amend the stay to continue until further order while permitting respondent or ACC to apply to discharge it for lack of diligence or other grounds.
7 Dec 2021

SU v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2021] NZHC 3336

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3336
Court

High Court

The stay was continued because, on balance, continuation preserved the position pending the Court of Appeal appeal: the applicant faced serious and potentially irreversible prejudice if deported before that appeal was heard, the respondent showed no material prejudice from a limited further delay, the applicant was prosecuting his appeal bona fide and the merits were not plainly hopeless, and it was likely more efficient to hear the IPT appeal after the Court of Appeal determination.
31 Mar 2021

LESLIE NORMAN AUSTIN v ROCHE PRODUCTS (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2021] NZSC 30

Citation

[2021] 1 NZLR 194
Court

Supreme Court

Section 133(5) bars the courts from considering or granting remedies in relation to matters governed by the Act once a claim with a right of review or appeal is made; the appellant's challenge could and should have been pursued under the Act's Part 5 review and appeal procedures (including applying for late review under s135), and being out of time does not evade the statutory bar; accordingly the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the substantive civil claim.
11 Aug 2020

PETER WILLIAM MAWHINNEY AS TRUSTEE OF THE DOUG VESEY TRUST v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2020] NZSC 81

Citation

[2020] NZSC 81
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal is refused because the Court of Appeal correctly held that s 89AC applies, is procedural, and that time for the Commissioner to issue a NOR runs from the date the NOPA is treated as in time (so the NOR was in time); no error of law or sufficient public importance was shown to justify leave, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a direct appeal from the TRA.
18 Mar 2020

TAN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2020] NZHC 546

Citation

[2020] NZHC 546
Court

High Court

Because the appellant did not complete the three mandatory steps in r 20.6(1) (filing in the High Court, filing in the Tribunal office, and service on other parties) within the 22 working day limit prescribed by s 123(4) of the Human Rights Act 1993, and because precedent establishes the Court cannot extend or waive those requirements, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal and it must be struck out.
12 Nov 2019

HERBST v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2019] NZHC 2953

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2953
Court

High Court

The High Court has no power to grant special leave under s 162 where the District Court struck out an out‑of‑time application for leave because the District Court lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory 21‑day period absent the respondent's waiver; a jurisdictional strike‑out is not a refusal of leave within s 162(3), therefore the High Court must dismiss the application for special leave.
7 Nov 2019

WEST COAST HOLDINGS LTD v MURRAY [2019] NZHC 2913

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2913
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to serve a sworn affidavit supporting the application within the mandatory ten working day period, a requirement the Court cannot extend; non‑compliance is fatal to the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice.
6 Nov 2019

BPE TRUSTEES (NO. 1) LIMITED v BASSETT-BURR [2019] NZHC 2880

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2880
Court

High Court

The application to set aside the bankruptcy notice was dismissed because the bankruptcy notice was not defective (it included the solicitor's name and a PO Box for service in the Notes) and the applicant's filing and electronic service were received after 5pm on the last permissible day, which under r 6.6(3) means service occurred on the next working day and therefore outside the strict 10 working-day limit imposed by s 17(4)(a) of the Insolvency Act 2006, rendering the application ineffective.