Nottingham v Prentice

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA199/2018
[2018] NZCA 461

BETWEEN	DERMOT GREGORY NOTTINGHAM Applicant
AND	KELVIN LYNN PRENTICE First Respondent
AND	APN NEWS & MEDIA LIMITED Second Respondent

Court:	French, Simon France and Moore JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person N S Tabb for First Respondent A L Ringwood for Second Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	29 October 2018 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

Mr Nottingham seeks leave to appeal a decision of Wylie J in the High Court.[1]
[1]Nottingham v APN News & Media Ltd [2018] NZHC 596.
In the decision at issue, Wylie J declined to grant Mr Nottingham an extension of time under s 298(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to apply for leave to appeal two rulings and a costs judgment issued by Judge Collins in the District Court.[2]
[2]Nottingham v APN News and Media Ltd [2016] NZDC 11154; Nottingham v APN News and Media Ltd [2016] NZDC 11198; and Nottingham v Prentice [2017] NZDC 18603.
For the reasons articulated in the decision of this Court in two other proceedings also involving Mr Nottingham,[3] we are satisfied we do not have jurisdiction to entertain Mr Nottingham’s application. That is so whether it is characterised as an application for leave to appeal Wylie J’s decision declining to grant an extension of time, or an application for leave to appeal Wylie J’s decision declining to grant leave to appeal.
[3]Nottingham v District Court at Auckland [2018] NZCA 345 at [15]–[23] and [27]–[32].
The application for leave to appeal is accordingly declined.

Solicitors:
Bell Gully, Auckland for Second Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dermot Gregory Nottingham has applied for leave to appeal a decision of Wylie J in the High Court, which declined to grant an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal two rulings and a costs judgment issued by Judge Collins in the District Court. Kelvin Lynn Prentice and APN News & Media Limited are the respondents in this case. The Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and, if so, whether the appeal should be allowed.

The key legal issue before the Court was whether it had jurisdiction to entertain Mr Nottingham's application for leave to appeal Wylie J’s decision declining to grant an extension of time to appeal the District Court's decisions. The Court had previously decided in two other proceedings involving Mr Nottingham that it did not have jurisdiction to hear his appeal against the High Court's refusal to grant an extension of time to appeal the District Court's decisions. The Court held that the same reasoning applied in this case, and it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

In reaching its decision, the Court considered the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and the case law on the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the application for leave to appeal was time-barred and that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Court declined Mr Nottingham's application for leave to appeal.

The Court did not make any orders in relation to the appeal. The decision of the High Court stands, and Mr Nottingham is not granted leave to appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established