H v M

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA171/2008
[2008] NZCA 131
BETWEENH

Applicant

ANDM

Respondent

Hearing:21 May 2008

Court:O'Regan, Priestley and Heath JJ
Counsel:S L Abdale and S Member for Applicant

M M Casey and S A John for Respondent

Judgment:21 May 2008 (Oral)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal is dismissed.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
CWe confirm the direction of the High Court remitting the matter to the Family Court for implementation of the order requiring that V be returned to Germany. We direct counsel to file in the Family Court a joint memorandum, if they can agree, or separate memoranda if they cannot agree, setting out proposed orders and directions required as a result of the Family Court judgment. That memorandum or those memoranda must be filed within seven days of today’s date.
DThis decision may be cited as Harper v Johnson.
ECosts are reserved. We give leave to the respondent to file a memorandum seeking costs in the event that the applicant’s application for legal aid is declined. If such an application is made, the Court will set a timetable for the making of submissions.

(Reasons will follow)
Solicitors:
Turner Hopkins, Auckland for Applicant

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in this case was brought by H, the Applicant, against M, the Respondent. The nature of the dispute is an appeal against the High Court's decision to dismiss the Applicant's appeal against an order of the Family Court. The appeal was heard before the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, presided over by O'Regan, Priestley and Heath JJ. The Applicant sought leave to amend the grounds of appeal and also sought leave to appeal the High Court's decision. The legal issues before the court were whether the Applicant had a right to amend the grounds of appeal and whether the Applicant had leave to appeal the High Court's decision.

The Court of Appeal found that the Applicant did not have a right to amend the grounds of appeal, as the time for doing so had passed. The Court also found that the Applicant did not have leave to appeal the High Court's decision, as the appeal was frivolous and had no reasonable prospect of success. The Court confirmed the direction of the High Court remitting the matter to the Family Court for implementation of the order requiring that V be returned to Germany. The Court also directed counsel to file in the Family Court a joint memorandum, if they can agree, or separate memoranda if they cannot agree, setting out proposed orders and directions required as a result of the Family Court judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant's application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal and the application for leave to appeal. The Court confirmed the direction of the High Court remitting the matter to the Family Court for implementation of the order requiring that V be returned to Germany. The Court also directed counsel to file in the Family Court a joint memorandum, if they can agree, or separate memoranda if they cannot agree, setting out proposed orders and directions required as a result of the Family Court judgment. The Court reserved costs and gave leave to the Respondent to file a memorandum seeking costs in the event that the Applicant's application for legal aid is declined. If such an application is made, the Court will set a timetable for the making of submissions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established