Body Corporate 188529 v North Shore City Council
Case
•
[2007] NZCA 255
•22 June 2007
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Body Corporate 188529 v North Shore City Council [2007] NZCA 255
[2007] NZCA 255
22 June 2007
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in Body Corporate 188529 and Another v North Shore City Council and Others was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The first appellant was Body Corporate 188529, and the second appellants were Katrina Margaret Sangha, Davinder Singh, Devlin Properties Limited, Michelle Janette Turner, Lisa Adella Turner, Clifford Scott Parkinson, Judith Rosemary Parkinson, David Paul Halford, and Blue Sky Holdings Limited. The first respondent was the North Shore City Council, and the second respondents were Robert Henry Graham Barton and Kay Barton. The third respondent was R F Coughlan and Associates. The appeal concerned an order by Harrison J declining to adjourn a trial in "leaky home" proceedings scheduled to commence in the High Court at Auckland on 16 July 2007. The Court of Appeal panel was convened to deal with the matter as the respondents had consented to the appeal being granted.
The legal issues before the court included whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal of a ruling made in the course of a hearing, such as an application for an adjournment. The court considered the precedent set in Doone v Fairfax New Zealand Limited, which held that rulings made during the hearing would not ordinarily be subject to an interlocutory appeal unless there was a sound substantive concern for the Court to have jurisdiction. Despite these reservations, the court noted that all parties had agreed to grant the appeal, and the High Court registry in Auckland could accommodate the fixture at a later date.
The court granted the appeal by consent, acknowledging the precedent set in Doone v Fairfax New Zealand Limited but deciding that in this case, it was appropriate to grant the appeal. The court also noted that no question of costs arose from the proceedings. The appeal was granted, and the trial was rescheduled to a later date.
The legal issues before the court included whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal of a ruling made in the course of a hearing, such as an application for an adjournment. The court considered the precedent set in Doone v Fairfax New Zealand Limited, which held that rulings made during the hearing would not ordinarily be subject to an interlocutory appeal unless there was a sound substantive concern for the Court to have jurisdiction. Despite these reservations, the court noted that all parties had agreed to grant the appeal, and the High Court registry in Auckland could accommodate the fixture at a later date.
The court granted the appeal by consent, acknowledging the precedent set in Doone v Fairfax New Zealand Limited but deciding that in this case, it was appropriate to grant the appeal. The court also noted that no question of costs arose from the proceedings. The appeal was granted, and the trial was rescheduled to a later date.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Interlocutory Orders
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0