Rabson v Chapman

Case [2014] NZCA 158


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA855/2012
[2014] NZCA 158

BETWEEN

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON
Appellant

AND

WAYNE SEYMOUR CHAPMAN
Respondent

Hearing:

7 April 2014

Court:

O’Regan P, White and Miller JJ

Counsel:

No appearance for Appellant
S A Barker and K L Hamill for Respondent

Judgment:

29 April 2014 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is struck out.

BThe appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs for a standard application on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

_________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by White J)

  1. The respondent, Mr Chapman, applies for an order striking out an appeal by the appellant, Mr Rabson, under r 37 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 because security for costs has not been paid.  Mr Rabson’s appeal is against the decision of Kós J granting Mr Chapman vacant possession of a property.[1]

  2. Mr Rabson has not filed any opposition to the strike‑out application and did not appear at the hearing of the application.  Instead he filed a document suggesting that he had not been served with the application.

  3. We are satisfied for the following reasons that the appeal should be struck out:

    (a)Mr Rabson has not paid the security for costs of $5,880 as set by the Registrar of this Court on 11 January 2013.  Attempts by Mr Rabson to have security dispensed with or reduced have all been unsuccessful.[2]

    (b)It is an inevitable consequence of a failure to pay security for costs that the appeal will be struck out.[3]

    (c)Notwithstanding Mr Rabson’s suggestion to the contrary, there is now affidavit evidence before the Court (the affidavit of N H Whalley dated 10 April 2014) that Mr Rabson was served with the strike‑out application and was, in any event, aware of the hearing date.

    (d)The Official Assignee has now filed a memorandum dated 14 April 2014 confirming that Mr Rabson was adjudicated bankrupt on 18 March 2013 and that, in accordance with ss 117 and 118 of the Insolvency Act 2006 and decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court,[4] the Official Assignee has formally abandoned this appeal.  As a consequence of Mr Rabson’s adjudication in bankruptcy, he has no standing to pursue the appeal which vested in the Official Assignee.[5]

Result

  1. The appeal is therefore struck out.

  2. Mr Rabson is to pay Mr Chapman’s costs for a standard application on a band A basis and usual disbursements.  We do not certify for two counsel.

Solicitors:
Buddle Findlay, Wellington for Respondent


Details
AGLC
Rabson v Chapman [2014] NZCA 158
Case
[2014] NZCA 158
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Malcolm Edward Rabson appealed against Wayne Seymour Chapman in a case concerning the grant of vacant possession of a property. The appeal was heard by O'Regan P, White and Miller JJ on 7 April 2014. Chapman applied to strike out the appeal on the basis that Rabson had failed to pay the required security for costs. Rabson did not appear at the hearing of the application, nor did he file any opposition to the strike-out application.

The court was required to determine whether the appeal should be struck out due to Rabson's failure to pay the security for costs. The court also had to decide if Rabson had been properly served with the strike-out application and if his adjudication in bankruptcy impacted his ability to pursue the appeal. The court found that Rabson had not paid the required security for costs, despite multiple unsuccessful attempts to have it dispensed with or reduced. Furthermore, affidavit evidence confirmed that Rabson had been served with the application and was aware of the hearing date. The Official Assignee also filed a memorandum confirming that Rabson was adjudicated bankrupt on 18 March 2013, and as a result, he had no standing to pursue the appeal, as it vested in the Official Assignee.

The Court of Appeal struck out the appeal and ordered Rabson to pay Chapman's costs for a standard application on a band A basis and usual disbursements. The court did not certify for two counsel. The parties were represented by Buddle Findlay, Wellington for the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.