Rupa and others v Bank of New Zealand [2009] NZCA 63 (9 March 2009)

Last Updated: 18 March 2009

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA76/2008

[2009] NZCA 63

BETWEEN DILIP-KUMAR RUPA, SARDADEVI RUPA, REWA-KARA RUPA AND KOKILA RUPA
Appellants

AND BANK OF NEW ZEALAND
Respondent

Counsel: Dilip Rupa in person for Appellants
M J Tingey for Respondent

Judgment: 9 March 2009 at 2.30 pm

(On the papers)

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAM YOUNG P

The application for a stay is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

[1] Since the judgment of the Court delivered on 13 February 2009, the appellants have now filed a further application for a stay. I am told that they have also applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Also lodged with the Court has been a document styled “Memorandum to inform Court of Appeal of untenable actions by senior court staff causing prejudice”. I see no point in commenting on this latter document.
[2] The primary significance of the granting of a stay would be to prevent the payment out to the respondent of the security for costs previously provided by the appellants.
[3] I accept that there is be jurisdiction to grant a stay but decline to do so.
[4] The appellants say that they are seeking a “Commission of Inquiry via their Member of Parliament” into the miscarriage of justice which they say has occurred. There is also a repetition of what I regard as a plainly unsound complaint about Wild J sitting on the appeal. So I see the proposed appeal as lacking any discernible merit.
[5] As well, I see no good reason why the respondent should not, in the meantime, be paid out the security for costs. If leave to appeal were granted and the appeal were successful, the costs could no doubt be repaid.
[6] So the application for a stay is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Bell Gully, Auckland for Respondent