Naresh v New Zealand Transport Agency
[2019] NZHC 1279
•7 June 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2018-404-002154
[2019] NZHC 1279
BETWEEN RAJ NARESH
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY
Respondent
Hearing: 3 May 2019 Appearances:
Appellant in person
H Reid for Respondent
Judgment:
7 June 2019
FINAL JUDGMENT OF LANG J
This judgment was delivered by me on 7 June 2019 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………
NARESH v NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY [2019] NZHC 1279 [7 June 2019]
[1] In an interim judgment delivered on 21 March 2019, I held that as matters then stood Mr Naresh had not identified any question of law for this Court to consider on appeal.1 As an indulgence I gave Mr Naresh until 9 May 2019 to file and serve further submissions identifying any questions of law he considers the Court should determine.
[2] Mr Naresh has now filed a memorandum and affidavit. In the memorandum he contends I erred in my interim judgment regarding the number of traffic offences, criminal convictions and documented complaints he has accumulated. Whether or not I made any error in that regard is irrelevant to the issue I am now required to determine.
[3] The error of law Mr Naresh identifies in relation to the Judge’s decision is as follows:
On 7 September 2018 Her Honour Judge A A Sinclair did give an extra time to the respondent to discuss there [sic] case and made a false and misleading information in her decision regarding a 107 traffic offences 10 criminal conviction and 50 documented complain from ATO
[4] In an affidavit filed on 24 April 2019 Mr Naresh also seeks to raise an alleged error of law in relation to a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent which Mr Naresh did not receive prior to the hearing date.
[5] I do not consider either of these issues raises an arguable question of law so as to enable Mr Naresh to bring an appeal to this Court.
[6]The application for leave to appeal is accordingly declined.
Lang J
Solicitors:
Henley-Smith Law (Auckland) for Appellant Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent
Counsel: Paul F Chambers
1 Naresh v New Zealand Transport Agency [2019] NZHC 523.