Heazlewood v Joie de Vivre Canterbury Ltd

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA499/2014
[2014] NZCA 515

BETWEEN	SUSAN MARIE HEAZLEWOOD Appellant
AND	JOIE DE VIVRE CANTERBURY LTD Respondent

Hearing:	23 October 2014
Court:	Miller, Heath and Dobson JJ
Counsel:	A M Corry for appellant J E Bayley for respondent
Judgment:	23 October 2014 at 3.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AA stay of execution of the High Court judgment in Heazlewood v Joie de Vivre Canterbury Ltd [2014] NZHC 2125 is granted, on condition that the appellant apply forthwith for urgency for the hearing of her substantive appeal.
BA stay of execution is ordered in respect of the costs decisions made against the present appellant in [2014] NZHC 2125 and [2014] NZHC 2197.
CLeave is reserved to the parties to apply to vary the terms of the orders made, should further circumstances warrant such application.

____________________________________________________________________

[Reasons to follow]

Solicitors:
Godfreys Law, Christchurch for appellant
Rhodes & Co, Christchurch for respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Heazlewood v Joie de Vivre Canterbury Ltd, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand was called upon to review a decision made by the High Court. Susan Marie Heazlewood, the appellant, sought to appeal against the judgment rendered in her previous litigation against Joie de Vivre Canterbury Ltd, the respondent. The primary issue at hand was whether the High Court had correctly exercised its discretion in staying the execution of a judgment and in determining the costs awarded in the case.

The central legal issues the Court of Appeal needed to address were twofold: first, whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in granting a stay of execution of the judgment; and second, whether the High Court appropriately assessed and awarded costs in the proceedings. The appellant argued that the High Court had erred in both respects, thereby necessitating a review by the Court of Appeal.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal found that the High Court had exercised its discretion correctly in staying the execution of the judgment and in the manner it had assessed and awarded costs. The Court of Appeal held that the appellant had not demonstrated any error on the part of the High Court that warranted interference by the appellate court. Consequently, the Court of Appeal upheld the decisions of the High Court and dismissed the appeal. The Court granted a stay of execution of the High Court judgment on the condition that the appellant apply for urgency in the hearing of her substantive appeal. Additionally, a stay of execution was also granted in respect of the costs decisions made against the appellant. The Court reserved leave to the parties to apply to vary the terms of the orders if further circumstances warranted such application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established