Robert John Erwood v Janet Maxted

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 21/2009
[2009] NZSC 14

BETWEENROBERT JOHN ERWOOD

Applicant

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

First Respondents
ANDTHE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE

Second Respondent

Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping JJ
Counsel:Applicant in Person

Judgment:27 February 2009

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
REASONS
[1]       The applicant has sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal which lifted stays on public advertising and the calling of a creditors’ meeting by the Official Assignee in his bankruptcy.[1]
[1]      Erwood v Maxted and Others [2009] NZCA 19.

[2]       Written submissions from Mr Erwood have been received. Having considered them and other material which he has provided, we are satisfied that there is no prospect of the proposed appeal succeeding. For the reasons it gave, the Court of Appeal’s decision was clearly correct.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was asked to consider an application from Robert John Erwood to appeal against a decision made by the Court of Appeal. The original dispute involved Erwood's bankruptcy, with the Court of Appeal ruling in favour of lifting stays on public advertising and the calling of a creditors' meeting by the Official Assignee. The respondents in this case were Janet Maxted and Alexander James Jeremy Glasgow, who acted as trustees of the estate of Edward Erwood, and the Official Assignee. Erwood, representing himself, sought to challenge the Court of Appeal's decision, which he believed was incorrect.

The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether Erwood's application for leave to appeal should be granted. Specifically, the court needed to determine if there was a prospect that the appeal would succeed and if the Court of Appeal's decision was indeed correct. The Court of Appeal had concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of success for Erwood's appeal, and it had provided detailed reasons for its decision.

The Supreme Court reviewed Erwood's submissions and the material he provided. The justices concluded that the Court of Appeal's decision was clearly correct and there was no prospect of success for Erwood's appeal. The reasoning provided by the Court of Appeal was thorough and well-founded, leaving no room for further argument. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed Erwood's application for 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