Carver v Official Assignee HC Auckland CIV 2010-404-2776

[2010] NZHC 1116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2010-404-002776

BETWEEN  SHIRLEY-ANNE CARVER First Applicant

ANDGARRY DESMOND STEWART Second Applicant

AND  OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE Respondent

Hearing:         28 June 2010

Counsel:         GD Neil for Respondent

SP Bryers for Mr Jack and Jack Family Trust

Judgment:      28 June 2010 at 9:15am

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE FAIRE

[on application for order reversing or modifying the Official Assignee’s decision not to progress the rights of the applicants to progress the appeal in the Court

of Appeal]

Solicitors:           Meredith Connell, PO Box 2213, Auckland for respondent

R Wood, PO Box 6422, Auckland for NC Jack and Jack Family Trust

And To:             SA Carver, PO Box 47 285, Ponsonby

CARVER  V OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE HC AK CIV 2010-404-002776  28 June 2010

[1]      This is an application by the first and second-named applicants seeking an order reversing or modifying the Official Assignee’s decision not to progress the right of the applicants to progress an appeal.

[2]      Counsel advised me that the deadline for an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in relation to this matter expired on 14 June 2010.  It is common ground that no such application for leave to appeal has been filed on or before that date.

[3]      In  my minute  of  31  May 2010,  I advised  the  parties  and,  in  particular, Mrs Carver of the likely consequence in relation to the current application if an application for leave to appeal was not filed with the Supreme Court.

[4]      Mrs Carver advises me today that  she has instructed  counsel and  that a further extension of time is sought by her so that whatever potential relief might be available can be explored.  My decision in this case does not bear on other forms of relief that may be available to Mrs Carver.  That is a matter which she must explore and if she deems it appropriate take advice accordingly.

[5]      What is clear in this case, however, is that the current application cannot succeed because the time for taking steps in relation to an appeal, including leave to appeal, has passed.  The purpose of the application is therefore entirely spent.

[6]      Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

[7]      Neither Mr Neil or Mr Bryers make applications for costs, accordingly no order is made.

JA Faire

Associate Judge