Goode v Foundation Life (NZ) Limited

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA513/2025

[2025] NZCA 434

BETWEEN BEVAN GOODE
Applicant
AND FOUNDATION LIFE (NZ) LIMITED
Respondent

Court:	Courtney and Campbell JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person M D Arthur, J Marcetic and N D Whittle for Respondent
Judgment:	27 August 2025 at 4.00 pm
(On the papers)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A	The application for stay of the decision in [2025] NZHC 1786 is declined.
B	Costs are reserved pending the outcome of the appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

[Reasons to follow]

Solicitors:

Chapman Tripp, Auckland for Respondent

GOODE v FOUNDATION LIFE (NZ) LIMITED [2025] NZCA 434 [27 August 2025]

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bevan Goode brought an application for a stay of a decision made in the High Court of New Zealand, which was opposed by Foundation Life (NZ) Limited. The Court of Appeal, consisting of Courtney and Campbell JJ, was tasked with deciding whether to grant the stay and the associated costs. The appeal was presented on the papers, and the decision was handed down on 27 August 2025.

The primary legal issue the Court of Appeal had to resolve was whether to grant the applicant, Bevan Goode, a stay of the decision made in the High Court. The secondary issue was whether to order the respondent, Foundation Life (NZ) Limited, to pay costs pending the outcome of the appeal. The Court of Appeal needed to weigh the merits of the applicant's request for a stay against the potential prejudice that could be caused to the respondent if such a stay were granted. Additionally, the Court had to consider the appropriate allocation of costs in light of the appeal's outcome.

The Court of Appeal found that granting a stay was not warranted in this case. The Court reasoned that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify a stay of the High Court's decision. Furthermore, the Court determined that the potential prejudice to the respondent outweighed any benefit that might accrue to the applicant from a stay. Consequently, the Court declined the application for a stay. Regarding costs, the Court of Appeal reserved the decision on costs pending the outcome of the appeal, ensuring that the respondent would not be unduly burdened if the appeal were to be unsuccessful.

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

BETWEEN	BEVAN GOODE Applicant
AND	FOUNDATION LIFE (NZ) LIMITED Respondent