Armitage v Stylo Medical Services Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 110/2023
[2023] NZSC 155

BETWEEN	ROSANNE ARMITAGE Applicant
AND	STYLO MEDICAL SERVICES LIMITED Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Kós JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person R O Parmenter for Respondent
Judgment:	30 November 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

An Associate Judge declined to strike out or stay liquidation proceedings against Hum Hospitality Ltd.[1] Hum is controlled by the present applicant. She sought to bring an appeal against that decision in the Court of Appeal. In doing so she sought a waiver of the $7,060 security for costs ordered by the Court or an order reducing security and deferring the date by which it is payable. A Deputy Registrar declined that application. A Judge thereafter declined an application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision.[2]
[1]Stylo Medical Services Ltd v Hum Hospitality Ltd [2023] NZHC 463 (Associate Judge Brittain).
[2]Armitage v Stylo Medical Services Ltd [2023] NZCA 425 (Courtney J).
The applicant submits Hum is a social enterprise advancing wellbeing initiatives for the community. She complains the Judge failed to make her own de novo assessment of the criteria for waiver and made other diverse errors of reasoning as to the standard for review and considerations relevant to it.

Our assessment

This proposed appeal from a decision relating to security for costs does not meet the criteria for leave. It turns entirely on the particular facts of the litigation below and neither involves a matter of general or public importance nor a matter of general commercial significance.[3] Nor are we satisfied that the complaints of error are sustainable such that a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred in the decision below.[4] Given the protracted history of the litigation between these parties, including a number of abandoned appeals, it is orthodox for the respondent to have the bare protection of security for costs if this appeal proceeds and then either is abandoned or fails.[5] It is not therefore necessary in the interests of justice for the court to hear and determine the appeal.[6]

Result

[3]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(a) and (c).

[4]Section 74(2)(b).

[5]Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63, [2014] 1 NZLR 737 at [21].

[6]Senior Courts Act, s 74(1).

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:

Winston Wang & Associates, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application from Rosanne Armitage, who sought leave to appeal a decision that denied her a waiver of the $7,060 security for costs in a liquidation proceeding against Hum Hospitality Ltd, a company she controls. Stylo Medical Services Limited was the respondent in this case. The court was asked to determine whether Armitage's application for leave to appeal met the necessary criteria. The case involved the interpretation and application of the criteria for security for costs, and whether the initial decision contained any errors that could justify a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the court were whether the application for leave to appeal met the statutory criteria for leave, and whether there were any sustainable complaints of error in the decision that warranted an appeal. The court needed to determine if the appeal involved a matter of general or public importance, or a matter of general commercial significance, as well as whether the complaints of error were such that a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred. The court also needed to consider the protracted history of litigation between the parties and the potential consequences of allowing the appeal.

The court found that the proposed appeal did not meet the criteria for leave, as it turned entirely on the particular facts of the litigation below and did not involve a matter of general or public importance or a matter of general commercial significance. The court also noted that it was not satisfied that the complaints of error were sustainable such that a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred in the decision below. Given the history of the litigation between the parties, the court concluded that it was not necessary in the interests of justice for the court to hear and determine the appeal.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The court's decision was based on the particular facts of the case, the lack of general or public importance, and the absence of a sustainable complaint of error that could result in a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court also considered the potential consequences of allowing the appeal, given the history of the litigation between the parties. The dismissal of the application for leave to appeal meant that the original decision denying the waiver of security for costs remained in place.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established