Robert Erwood v Janet Maxted

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 66/2010
[2010] NZSC 143

BETWEENROBERT ERWOOD

Appellant

ANDJANET MAXTED AND JANET MAXTED AND ALEXANDER JAMES JEREMY GLASGOW AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD ERWOOD

Respondents
BETWEENROBERT ERWOOD

Appellant

ANDJANET MAXTED AND JANET MAXTED AND ALEXANDER JAMES JEREMY GLASGOW AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD ERWOOD

First Respondents

ANDTHE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE

Second Respondent

Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard and McGrath JJ
Counsel:Appellant in Person

G D Downing for Estate of Edward Erwood (electing not to make submissions)
P D McKenzie QC as amicus curiae
P R W Chisnall for Official Assignee

Judgment:30 November 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.

BThe approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal acted incorrectly in striking out the appellant’s appeal to that Court in CA 567/07 when it struck out his appeal in CA 631/07 for non-payment of security for costs ordered in respect of CA 631/07.

Solicitors:
McFadden McMeeken Phillips, Nelson for Estate of Edward Erwood

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an appeal by Robert Erwood against Janet Maxted and others. The primary issue was whether the Court of Appeal had acted incorrectly by dismissing Erwood's appeal due to his failure to pay the required security for costs. Erwood's appeal was related to a decision regarding the estate of Edward Erwood, which Janet Maxted and Alexander James Jeremy Glasgow were administering as trustees. Erwood's appeal was struck out due to his non-compliance with the order to provide security for costs in relation to another appeal, CA 631/07.

The legal question before the court was whether the Court of Appeal was justified in dismissing Erwood's appeal on the basis that he had not paid the security for costs. Erwood argued that the dismissal of his appeal was unfair given the circumstances and sought to challenge the Court of Appeal's decision. The court had to determine if there were any procedural errors or if the Court of Appeal had acted within its jurisdiction when it dismissed the appeal.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court granted Erwood's application for leave to appeal and identified the specific issue of whether the Court of Appeal had acted incorrectly in striking out Erwood's appeal. The court noted that the grounds for appeal were valid and that there was a need to review the Court of Appeal's decision. The court's decision acknowledged that the matter of dismissing an appeal for non-payment of security for costs was significant and warranted further examination.

The final orders of the court included granting Erwood leave to appeal and specifying that the issue for determination was whether the Court of Appeal had acted incorrectly in dismissing his appeal. This decision allowed Erwood to seek a review of the Court of Appeal's decision on the grounds that it may have been unjust or procedurally flawed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established