You are here:
NZLII >>
Databases >>
Court of Appeal of New Zealand >>
2022 >>
[2022] NZCA 186
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Decisions
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
Thirty Eight Moffat Limited v Auckland Council [2022] NZCA 186 (16 May 2022)
Last Updated: 24 May 2022
|
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW
ZEALANDI
TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA
|
|
|
BETWEEN
|
THIRTY EIGHT MOFFAT LIMITED Appellant
|
|
AND
|
AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Respondent
WATERCARE SERVICES
LIMITED Second Respondent
|
Court:
|
Gilbert and Collins JJ
|
Counsel:
|
G M Illingworth QC and S J Ryan for Appellant PMS McNamara and C J
Ryan for Respondents
|
Judgment: (On the papers)
|
16 May 2022 at 9 am
|
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
- The
application for an extension of time to apply for a hearing date is granted.
- We
direct the Registrar to allocate a hearing date for this appeal in accordance
with the joint memorandum of counsel dated 29 March
2022.
- We
make no order for
costs.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Gilbert J)
- [1] The
appellant applies pursuant to r 43(2) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005
(the Rules) for an extension of time to apply
for the allocation of a hearing
date.
- [2] The appeal
is against a judgment of the High Court delivered on 8 November 2021 declining
to make an order declaring a bylaw
invalid.[1] The notice of appeal was
filed on 6 December 2021. Security for costs was paid on 21 January 2022.
On 4 March 2022, the appellant
applied for a brief extension of time
(from 7 March 2022 to 28 March 2022) to apply for the allocation of a hearing
date. Mr Ryan,
junior counsel for the appellant, explained that the extension
was needed because he had been unable to confer with the appellant
over the
holiday period and wished to confer with senior counsel, including as to whether
amended grounds of appeal should be filed.
- [3] The
respondents initially took the position that they would not formally oppose the
application and would abide the decision of
the Court. They noted, however,
that there was no explanation as to why counsel could not have been consulted
before the deadline
and argued that the appeal is without merit.
- [4] On 28 March
2022, the appellant filed amended grounds of appeal, filed the case on
appeal, applied for a hearing date and paid
the requisite filing fee.
On 29 March 2022, counsel filed a joint memorandum agreeing that a
one-day hearing would be required for
the appeal.
- [5] We are
satisfied that the interests of justice require that the application be granted,
applying the well-settled principles set
out by the Supreme Court in
Almond v Read.[2] In
particular, we note the delay was short and has caused no prejudice to
the respondents. We consider the delay has been adequately
explained. We
note that amended grounds of appeal were filed during the period for which an
extension was sought. These considerations
point strongly in favour of granting
the application. This is not one of those rare cases where the merits of
the appeal weigh in
the balance. The respondents accept the appeal is not
hopeless.
- [6] The
appellant submits that any issue as to costs should be addressed as part of the
substantive appeal. The respondents sought
costs in the event only that
the application is declined. We consider that the issue of costs on this
application should be addressed
now.
- [7] The
application was required because of the appellant’s delay. On the other
hand, the respondents probably ought not to
have opposed it and have risked an
adverse costs award in doing so. However, on balance, we do not consider
the appellant should
receive costs. We therefore make no order as to
costs.
Result
- [8] The
application for an extension of time to apply for a hearing date is
granted.
- [9] We direct
the Registrar to allocate a hearing date for this appeal in accordance with the
joint memorandum of counsel dated 29
March 2022.
- [10] We make no
order for costs.
Solicitors:
Govett Quilliam, New
Plymouth for Appellant
Simpson Grierson, Auckland for Respondents
[1] Thirty Eight Moffat Ltd v
Auckland Council [2021] NZHC 2978.
[2] Almond v Read [2017]
NZSC 80, [2017] 1 NZLR 801. See Yarrow Westpac New Zealand Ltd
[2018] NZCA 601 at [4].
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCA/2022/186.html