Hart v ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA858/2012
[2013] NZCA 10

BETWEEN BARRY JOHN HART
Appellant

AND ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Respondent

Hearing: 13 February 2013

Court: O'Regan P, Arnold and Harrison JJ

Counsel: D Murray for Appellant
L A O'Gorman and A L Williams for Respondent

Judgment: 13 February 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave is granted to the respondent to apply to strike out the appeal.

B The appeal is struck out.

C The appellant must pay the respondent costs for a standard application (but limited to the allocation for the appearance of counsel) on a band A basis and usual disbursements. We certify for one counsel.

[Reasons to follow]

Solicitors:
Buddle Findlay, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Barry John Hart, the appellant, filed an appeal against ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited, the respondent, to challenge a decision made by a lower court. The nature of the dispute involves the enforcement of a judgment, specifically the execution of a writ of fientas levare facias on the appellant’s property. The case was heard on 13 February 2013, before O'Regan P, Arnold, and Harrison JJ. The appellant was represented by D Murray, while the respondent was represented by L A O'Gorman and A L Williams.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appeal was properly filed and whether it had sufficient merit to warrant a hearing. The court had to determine if the appeal was frivolous or vexatious and if it had any reasonable prospect of success. Additionally, the court considered whether the appellant had complied with the procedural requirements for filing an appeal, including the timely submission of necessary documents and payment of the requisite fees.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant had not demonstrated that the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success. The court held that the appeal was frivolous and vexatious, primarily due to the appellant’s failure to comply with the procedural requirements, including the non-payment of the necessary filing fees. Consequently, the court granted leave to the respondent to apply to strike out the appeal. The appeal was ultimately struck out, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs for the standard application, limited to the allocation for the appearance of counsel, on a band A basis, as well as the usual disbursements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established