Bellflower Holdings Limited v Premnath

[2025] NZHC 2859

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-2429

[2025] NZHC 2859

BETWEEN

BELLFLOWER HOLDINGS LIMITED

Appellant

AND

UTHRA PREMNATH

First Respondent

CHINRAJU PREMNATH

Second Respondent

Hearing:

30 September 2025

Counsel:

C Zhao for Appellant

No appearance for First Respondent No appearance for Second Respondent

Judgment:

30 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF O’GORMAN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 September 2025 at 3 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

…………………………………

BELLFLOWER HOLDINGS LTD v PREMNATH [2025] NZHC 2859 [30 September 2025]

[1]    Ms Zhao has purported to file a Notice of Appeal on behalf of Bellflower Holdings Ltd against a decision of the District Court dated 2 July 2025,1 which dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Disputes Tribunal dated 24 January 2024.

[2]    At the first call of the appeal in the Civil Appeals List on 30 September 2024, I explained to Ms Zhao that the appellant company had no right of appeal to this Court, and I dismissed the appeal. My reasons follow.

[3] The underlying dispute relates to s 362Q of the Building Act 2004. That section applies to defective building work carried out in relation to a household unit. It enables a client to give notice within 12 months from completion of the building work to either a building contractor or on-seller (if there is one) requiring that person to remedy the defect. The alleged defect in this case relates to a door. The appellant says it was in good condition at handover, contrary to the findings by the Tribunal and the District Court. The Tribunal awarded $4,589.88 as payment of repair costs. The appeal of that decision to the District Court was dismissed.

[4]    Only one appeal is available against a decision of the Disputes Tribunal, and that is an appeal to the District Court.2

(a)Section 23 of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1998 provides that every order made by the Tribunal under s 18(8) (being orders made to give effect to the Tribunal’s determination of a dispute) is final and binding on all parties. Section 23 states that “…no appeal shall lie in respect of any such order…” except as provided in s 50.

(b)Section 50 provides only that a party to Disputes Tribunal proceedings may appeal an order made by the Tribunal to the District Court. The right of appeal is limited to procedural errors.

1      Bellflower Holdings Ltd v Premnath [2025] NZDC 16161.

2      McKenzie v Sidhu [2025] NZHC 654 at [7].

(c)Thus, ss 23 and 50 make it clear that s 50 provides for a single and final (limited) right of appeal to the District Court. Neither the Disputes Tribunal Act, the District Court Act 2016, nor the High Court Rules 2016 contain any provision enabling a second appeal to the High Court.

[5]    The provisions of the Disputes Tribunal Act give effect to the Tribunal’s intended role as a forum for swift, inexpensive, fair and substantial justice, where lawyers have no place.3 The prospect of more than one appeal from the Tribunal’s decisions would cut across the proper role of the Tribunal.4

[6]    Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. For that reason, I need not address the application for lay representation of a company made under    r 5.36.5

Result

[7]Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

O’Gorman J

3      Mellow v Tsang [2004] NZAR 537 at [25].

4      Seymour v Spark New Zealand Trading Ltd [2023] NZHC 3193 at [7].

5      Re G J Mannix [1984] 1 NZLR 309 (CA); and Astra Construction Group Ltd v NZ Astra Construction Ltd (in liq) [2025] NZHC 2127.