Harrison v Harrison

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA725/2020
[2022] NZCA 386

BETWEEN	PAULINE JANICE HARRISON Appellant
AND	ADRIENNE HARRISON AND GRAEME ROSS HARRISON First Respondents NICHOLAS HAMILTON BIRDSEY Second Respondent RAYMOND OWEN PARMENTER Third Respondent CHILDFUND NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Fourth Respondent ASB BANK LIMITED Fifth Respondent

Court:	Cooper P, Brown and Gilbert JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in Person
Judgment: (On the papers)	19 August 2022 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is struck out.
___________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Brown J)

On 17 December 2020 Ms Harrison filed an appeal against a judgment of the High Court delivered on 19 November 2020 which made orders striking out two proceedings brought by Ms Harrison.[1]
[1]Harrison v Harrison [2020] NZHC 3066.
A decision of the Deputy Registrar dated 22 September 2021 declined Ms Harrison’s request for dispensation from the requirement to pay security for costs but reduced the amount payable by Ms Harrison to $14,120.00.
Ms Harrison’s application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision was declined in a judgment dated 13 June 2022. Ms Harrison was directed to pay security for costs in the sum of $14,120.00 by 12 July 2022.[2] The judgment advised that if she failed to comply with that direction her appeal would be struck out.
[2] Harrison v Harrison [2022] NZCA 246.
Ms Harrison failed to pay security for costs by 12 July 2022. Accordingly her appeal is struck out under r 37(1) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harrison v Harrison involved Pauline Janice Harrison, the appellant, who brought an appeal against a decision of the High Court. The respondents were Adrienne Harrison, Graeme Ross Harrison, Nicholas Hamilton Birdsey, Raymond Owen Parmenter, ChildFund New Zealand Limited, and ASB Bank Limited. The Court of Appeal, consisting of Cooper P, Brown, and Gilbert JJ, was required to determine whether the appeal should be struck out due to Pauline Harrison's failure to pay security for costs. The appellant had previously been unsuccessful in her application for dispensation from the requirement to pay security for costs, and had also failed to pay the reduced amount directed by the Deputy Registrar.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Pauline Harrison's failure to pay security for costs within the stipulated time frame warranted the striking out of her appeal. The Court of Appeal was required to consider the relevant provisions of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 and assess the consequences of the appellant's non-compliance with the security for costs requirement. Additionally, the Court needed to determine if there were any exceptional circumstances that would warrant a departure from the usual consequences of non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal held that Pauline Harrison's failure to pay security for costs by the deadline resulted in her appeal being struck out under rule 37(1) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. The Court noted that the appellant had been made aware of the consequences of non-compliance and had failed to take the necessary steps to comply with the Court's direction. The Court found no exceptional circumstances to warrant a departure from the usual consequences of non-compliance. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

In summary, the Court of Appeal struck out Pauline Harrison's appeal due to her failure to pay security for costs within the specified time frame, in accordance with rule 37(1) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established