Russell v Attorney-General CA253/94 [1999] NZCA 346 (26 April 1999)

Last Updated: 26 August 2018

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA253/94

BETWEEN JOHN GEORGE RUSSELL

Appellant

AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL

First Respondent

AND KEITH LEIGH PETERSON

Second Respondent

AND WELLINGTON NEWSPAPERS LIMITED

Third Respondent

AND AUCKLAND STAR LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

AND THE SUN PUBLISHING COMPANY LIMITED
Fifth Respondent

AND WAIKATO & KING COUNTRY PRESS LIMITED

Sixth Respondent

AND WILSON & HORTON LIMITED

Seventh Respondent

AND FOURTH ESTATE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND SCHNEV HOLDINGS LIMITED
Eighth Respondent

AND TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Ninth Respondent
CA254/94

BETWEEN KEITH BYRON COLBERT

Appellant

AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL

First Respondent

AND KEITH LEIGH PETERSON

Second Respondent

AND WELLINGTON NEWSPAPERS LIMITED

Third Respondent

AND AUCKLAND STAR LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

AND THE SUN PUBLISHING COMPANY LIMITED

Fifth Respondent

AND WAIKATO & KING COUNTRY PRESS LIMITED
Sixth Respondent

AND WILSON & HORTON LIMITED

Seventh Respondent

AND FOURTH ESTATE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND SCHNEV HOLDINGS LIMITED
Eighth Respondent

AND TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Ninth Respondent
Hearing: 26 April 1999

Coram: Richardson P Blanchard J Salmon J

Appearances: R J Warburton for Appellants
I C Carter for Respondents

Judgment: 26 April 1999

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY RICHARDSON P

[1] This application to strike out appeals filed as long ago as December 1994 is brought on behalf of the fourth and fifth respondents. Other respondents have notified their support and it is not suggested in Mr Russell's affidavit that their position in the proceedings vis-à-vis Mr Russell and Mr Colbert differs from the fourth and fifth respondents, but, technically, the application is only on behalf of those two respondents.

[2] The appeals are against a judgment delivered on 16 November 1994 in relation to applications of June 1994 by Mr Russell and Mr Colbert for leave to bring defamation proceedings in respect of matters dating back to 1988. No steps have been taken in respect of these appeals since February 1995 despite advice by letter of 15 April 1998 that the solicitors for the fourth and fifth respondents had instructions to have the appeal struck out for want of prosecution and seeking a response. In his affidavit Mr Russell states that he has been very busy with tax litigation and has had difficulty in obtaining counsel to undertake this procedural appeal.

[3] We are satisfied that the delay is gross and inordinate, requiring that the appeals be struck out for want of prosecution. Orders accordingly with costs to the fourth and fifth respondents in the sum of $2,000 plus any reasonable disbursements as fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

Solicitors

Warburton, Auckland, for appellant in CA253/94 Brookfield, Auckland, for appellant in CA254/94