Rupa v Bank of New Zealand

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA76/2008
[2009] NZCA 63
BETWEENDILIP-KUMAR RUPA, SARDADEVI RUPA, REWA-KARA RUPA AND KOKILA RUPA

Appellants

ANDBANK OF NEW ZEALAND

Respondent

Counsel:Dilip Rupa in person for Appellants

M J Tingey for Respondent

Judgment:9 March 2009 at 2.30 pm

(On the papers)

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAM YOUNG P

The application for a stay is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
[1]       Since the judgment of the Court delivered on 13 February 2009, the appellants have now filed a further application for a stay. I am told that they have also applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Also lodged with the Court has been a document styled “Memorandum to inform Court of Appeal of untenable actions by senior court staff causing prejudice”. I see no point in commenting on this latter document.
[2]       The primary significance of the granting of a stay would be to prevent the payment out to the respondent of the security for costs previously provided by the appellants.
[3]       I accept that there is be jurisdiction to grant a stay but decline to do so.
[4]       The appellants say that they are seeking a “Commission of Inquiry via their Member of Parliament” into the miscarriage of justice which they say has occurred. There is also a repetition of what I regard as a plainly unsound complaint about Wild J sitting on the appeal. So I see the proposed appeal as lacking any discernible merit.
[5]       As well, I see no good reason why the respondent should not, in the meantime, be paid out the security for costs. If leave to appeal were granted and the appeal were successful, the costs could no doubt be repaid.
[6]       So the application for a stay is dismissed.
Solicitors:
Bell Gully, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an application for a stay by the appellants, Dilip-Kumar Rupa, Sarddevi Rupa, Rewa-Kara Rupa, and Kokila Rupa, against the Bank of New Zealand. The appellants, who were representing themselves, sought a stay to prevent the payment of security for costs to the Bank of New Zealand. This application followed an earlier judgment delivered on 13 February 2009, and the appellants also sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. They lodged a document with the Court, which was deemed unnecessary for comment.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant a stay of the payment of security for costs to the Bank of New Zealand. The Court acknowledged that there was jurisdiction to grant such a stay but ultimately declined to do so. The appellants argued that they were seeking a Commission of Inquiry through their Member of Parliament to address what they perceived as a miscarriage of justice. They also reiterated a complaint about the judge's involvement in the appeal, which the Court found to be unsound. The Court concluded that the proposed appeal lacked merit. Furthermore, the Court saw no reason to prevent the Bank of New Zealand from receiving the security for costs, as any costs paid could be repaid if the appeal were successful.

In dismissing the application for a stay, the Court noted that the appellants had also applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court's decision effectively meant that the Bank of New Zealand would be paid out the security for costs, and any costs paid could potentially be recovered if the appeal were successful. The appellants' complaints regarding the proceedings were not deemed sufficient grounds to grant a stay.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established