Deliu v New Zealand District Court at Auckland

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA611/2024
[2024] NZCA 593

BETWEEN	FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND First Respondent THE KING Second Respondent

Counsel:	Applicant in person No appearance for First Respondent (abides) D P Neild and S R Hiha for Second Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	14 November 2024 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

AThe application for an extension of time in which to appeal is granted.
BThe applicant is to file his notice of appeal against the costs decision by 5.00 pm 26 November 2024.
C The appeal against the costs decision should be heard alongside the appeal against the substantive judgment (CA420/2024).

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Deliu has appealed a decision of Gorman J in the High Court dismissing his application for judicial review (the substantive judgment).[1] Subsequently, O’Gorman J issued her costs decision on the substantive judgment (the costs decision).[2] In the costs decision, Mr Deliu was ordered to pay costs to the second respondent in the sum of $11,094.18.[3]
[1]Deliu v New Zealand District Law Society [2023] NZHC 1693.
[2]Deliu v New Zealand District Law Society [2024] NZHC 2276.
[3]At [7].
Mr Deliu now seeks an extension of time to appeal the costs decision.[4] The second respondent does not oppose the extension. I agree that it is appropriate to grant the extension. The delay in pursuing an appeal was short. The reason for the delay was that he had made an application to the Judge to recall the costs decision. Once the recall application was declined, Mr Deliu filed his application on the same day. There is no prejudice to the second respondent in granting the extension.
[4]Pursuant to r 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.
The application for an extension of time is therefore granted. Mr Deliu is to file his notice of appeal against the costs decision by 5.00 pm 26 November 2024. The appeal against the costs decision should be heard alongside the appeal against the substantive judgment.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office | Te Tari Ture o te Karauna, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Deliu v New Zealand District Court at Auckland, the applicant, Francisc Catalin Deliu, has appealed a decision of Gorman J in the High Court. Deliu's initial appeal concerns the dismissal of his application for judicial review, known as the substantive judgment. Following this, O’Gorman J issued a costs decision ordering Deliu to pay costs to the second respondent, amounting to $11,094.18. Deliu now seeks an extension of time to appeal the costs decision, which was initially denied by the Judge.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal pertain to the appropriateness of granting an extension of time for Deliu to appeal the costs decision. The primary consideration was the short delay in filing the appeal, which was attributed to Deliu's unsuccessful application to recall the costs decision. The Court also needed to assess whether granting the extension would prejudice the second respondent, who did not oppose the application. The Court needed to balance the reasons for the delay against any potential prejudice to the second respondent.

The Court of Appeal, represented by Mallon JA, found that granting the extension was appropriate. The delay was deemed short, and the reason for the delay was justified as Deliu had sought to recall the costs decision before filing his appeal. The second respondent did not oppose the extension, and there was no evidence of prejudice. Consequently, the Court granted the extension and instructed Deliu to file his notice of appeal by 5.00 pm on 26 November 2024. The appeal against the costs decision will be heard together with the appeal against the substantive judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established