Reihana v Crown Island Administering Body

The applicant, Toni Colin Reihana, sought an extension of time to file the case on appeal in a proceeding concerning the manner by which the Crown Island Administering Body was selected in relation to the Crown Titi islands. The Crown Island Administering Body and Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu were the first and second respondents, respectively. Reihana had filed a timeous appeal against the judgment delivered by Keane J on 1 July 2004, dismissing the applicant's challenge. However, he failed to file the case on appeal within the required six months, and subsequently applied for an extension of time. The respondents opposed the application on the grounds that the appeal must be deemed abandoned under the rules, and that the substantive appeal was without merit.

The court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to grant an extension of time to file the case on appeal, and if not, whether there were exceptional circumstances to allow a fresh appeal. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant an extension of time under the rules, and that the appeal must be deemed abandoned if the case was not filed. However, given that the applicant had been misled by a published Practice Note, the court exercised its discretion under rule 5 to allow a fresh appeal, on the strict condition that the case on appeal be lodged within 30 days of the delivery of the judgment. If the applicant failed to do so, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. The Registrar was to allocate a fixture for the hearing of the appeal.

The court dismissed the application for an extension of time to file the case on appeal. However, it granted leave to file a fresh appeal, on the terms that no fresh notice of appeal, security, or fixture application was required, but the case on appeal was to be lodged within 30 days of the delivery of the judgment. If the applicant did not lodge the case on appeal within the specified time, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. The Registrar was to allocate a fixture for the hearing of the appeal.