Moore v McNabb CA175/04

In Moore v McNabb, the appellant, Bridget Mary Moore, sought leave to appeal out of time from a judgment of Chisholm J in the High Court at Christchurch. The case involved a property dispute between former de facto partners, with the appellant having contributed little to the relationship financially while the respondent's assets increased significantly. The judge awarded the appellant 25% of the increase in the respondent's assets, amounting to around $84,000. The appeal was filed past the statutory deadline due to confusion over the new Court of Appeal Rules and the appellant's ill health. The respondent argued prejudice due to a pending investment decision but did not demonstrate significant harm from the delay itself.

The court considered whether the appeal had substantial grounds for being genuinely arguable and whether there was an acceptable excuse for the late filing. The court noted the change in law as a valid reason for the delay and concluded that the evaluative assessment by Chisholm J, particularly the method used to determine the 25% allowance, was open to argument. The court allowed the appeal despite the late filing and reserved costs, emphasizing that the appellant would eventually be responsible for the costs of the hearing.