Safari BBQ Products Limited v Safari Vervaardiging CC

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA643/2022
[2022] NZCA 603

BETWEEN	SAFARI BBQ PRODUCTS LIMITED Applicant
AND	SAFARI VERVAARDIGING CC Respondent

Court:	Miller and Brown JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person J Marcetic for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	5 December 2022 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application is declined.

B No order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

Mr Erasmus has applied for leave to represent the applicant. He is its director. He explains that he is capable and prefers to use available resources to build inventory rather than pay lawyers.
This falls far short of the exceptional circumstances required.[1]
[1]Re G J Mannix Ltd [1984] 1 NZLR 309 (CA) at 314 per Cooke J and 316–317 per Somers J; and Commissioner of Inland Revenue Chesterfields Preschools Ltd [2013] NZCA 53, [2013] 2 NZLR 679 at [25]–[27] and [34].
The application is declined. No order as to costs.

Solicitors:
Chapman Tripp, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Safari BBQ Products Limited v Safari Vervaardiging CC involved an application for leave to represent the applicant, Safari BBQ Products Limited, in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The respondent, Safari Vervaardiging CC, opposed the application. Safari BBQ Products Limited's director, Mr Erasmus, applied for leave to represent the company in person, explaining his preference to use available resources to build inventory instead of paying legal fees. The court had to determine whether the circumstances of the case were exceptional enough to allow Mr Erasmus to represent the applicant in person.

The court considered the criteria for exceptional circumstances, referencing previous cases where the courts had declined similar applications. The court noted that the applicant must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify self-representation, a standard that was not met in this case. The court found that Safari BBQ Products Limited's preference to allocate resources towards inventory rather than legal fees did not constitute exceptional circumstances as required by the precedents.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal declined the application for leave to represent the applicant in person. The court found that the circumstances did not meet the exceptional threshold needed for such a departure from the usual requirement of legal representation. As a result, Mr Erasmus was not permitted to represent Safari BBQ Products Limited in person. The court made no order as to costs, leaving the financial responsibility for legal representation with the applicant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established