Sayes v Sayes

[2017] NZCA 143

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA572/2016
[2017] NZCA 143

BETWEEN

MICHAEL WENTWORTH SAYES
Appellant

AND

GERRARD WENTWORTH SAYES
First Respondent

PRUDENCE JANE TAMATEKAPUA
Second Respondent

SHELLEY ANN SAYES
Third Respondent

JULIE BELLE GREER
Fourth Respondent

KENSINGTON SWAN
Fifth Respondent

WALTERS WILLIAMS AND CO
Sixth Respondent

KENNETH JOHN CROSSON AND JOHN BEVAN
Seventh Respondents

NIGEL GREER AND MATTHEW CARSON
Eight Respondents

COLIN JAMES WRIGHT
Ninth Respondent

SAYES FAMILY TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED
Tenth Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

28 April 2017 at 3.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF MILLER J

The application for an extension of time to comply with r 43 is declined.  The appeal is deemed abandoned.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. Before me is an application for an extension of time to comply with r 43.

2. The appeal was filed on 11 November 2016, and the appellant, who is self-represented, is not long out of time.  But as noted in a minute I issued on 21 March, the reasons given – the appellant’s dilatoriness in briefing counsel – were prima facie unacceptable.  Nor was it readily apparent that the appeal had any merit when limited to the judgment of 17 October 2016.  At that time I directed a telephone conference, but it was suggested that a decision should await clarification from counsel of the appellant’s grounds of appeal.

3. Since then the Registrar has been advised by Mr Finnigan, whom the appellant has nominated as his proposed counsel, that he is at this time not instructed to become involved in the appeal but he has been working with the appellant for some time to ascertain what the grounds might be.  Counsel has been instructed to do this much:  to ask for a delay on the ground that the appellant has left for France and won’t be back to New Zealand until 8 May 2017.  Counsel asks that the matter be deferred until toward the end of May.

4. I am not prepared to extend time.  It is apparent from the judgment under appeal that the appellant is continuing a pattern of behaviour in which he cites overseas travel as an excuse for not complying with Court directions.[1]  I remain of the view that it is not readily apparent that the appeal has any merit.  The appellant has been given an opportunity, in my minute of 21 March, to put his best foot forward.  He has not taken it.

   [1]Sayes v Tamatekapua [2016] NZHC 2463 at [11] and [14].

5. The application for extension of time is dismissed.  The consequence of this decision is that the appeal is deemed abandoned.

Solicitors:
Glaister Ennor, Auckland for Third, Fourth and Tenth Respondents