Franicevic v KGH Trust

[2016] NZHC 2075

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2016-485-449 [2016] NZHC 2075

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal against a determination of the

Tenancy Tribunal

BETWEEN

JENNIFER ANNE FRANICEVIC Appellant

AND

KGH TRUST Respondent

Hearing:	24 August 2016
Appearances:	Appellant in person P J Kennedy and A J Green for Respondent
Judgment:	2 September 2016

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

[1]      Ms Franicevic has an appeal to this Court against the decision of the District Court upholding the decision of the Tenancy Tribunal.   Pending the appeal, she applied for a stay of the District Court decision.

[2]      On 28 June, I heard the application and declined to grant the stay.  She then applied for leave to appeal the stay decision to the Court of Appeal.   I heard the application on 24 August.   An interlocutory decision made by the High Court on appeal from a District Court decision is an original decision, and accordingly, is appealable as of right.1    Accordingly, the High Court’s leave is not required, and must be declined accordingly.

[3]      One other point to note is that in my earlier judgment, I found that the merits of the substantive appeal were slim because no question of law was disclosed.   I

1      Siemer v Heron [2011] NZSC 133, [2012] NZLR 309 at [31] and [34].

FRANICEVIC v KGH TRUST [2016] NZHC 2075 [2 September 2016]

incorrectly stated that there is no right of cross-examination in the Tenancy Tribunal. As it transpires, s 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1993 does provide such a right.   However, Ms Franicevic did not ask to cross-examine in the Tribunal. Accordingly, this does not change my earlier analysis that the merits of the appeal are slim, and that, accordingly, the merits of the stay application are not strong.  And none of the other grounds raises a question of law.

Williams J