Technix Group Limited v Fitzroy Engineering Group Limited - [2011] NZCA 37

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA779/2010
[2011] NZCA 37

BETWEEN REBEKAH ALICE MEAD
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Counsel: I M Antunovic for Appellant
K A L Bicknell for Respondent

Judgment: 1 March 2011 at 4 pm

(On the papers)

JUDGMENT OF GLAZEBROOK J

The application for bail is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

Ms Mead was convicted of aggravated burglary and sentenced to three years and three months imprisonment. She has appealed to this Court against her conviction on the grounds of counsel error at trial.
Ms Mead applies for bail pending the determination of her appeal, pursuant to s 70 of the Bail Act 2000. I personally have considered the application pursuant to s 393(2)(d) of the Crimes Act 1961.

Legal test

The test to be applied in relation to the application is that set out in s 14 of the Bail Act. Under s 14(1), bail is not to be granted unless the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it would be in the best interests of justice in the particular case to do so. Section 14(2) provides that the onus is on the appellant to show cause why bail should be granted. As stated in R v Ellis:[1]
Admission to bail pending appeal is unusual and only to be granted in exceptional circumstances. The concern is for the overall interests of justice. The starting point is that the applicant has been found guilty and sentenced. Two further factors for special consideration are the apparent strength of the appeal and the element of delay causing injustice.
[1] Ellis v R [1998] 3 NZLR 555 (CA) at 560.
In R v Thomas, the Court repeated the statement from Ellis that admission to bail pending appeal is unusual and only to be granted in exceptional circumstances,[2] and stated that “[w]e do not consider the new Act [the Bail Act 2000] requires any significantly different approach”.[3]
[2]R v Thomas CA71/00, 22 February 2001 at [4]. This statement was also repeated by this Court in R v Vautier [2009] NZCA 285 at [13].
[3] R v Thomas at [5].
In R v De Bruin, this Court noted (as did the Court in Ellis[4]) that in considering the apparent strength of the grounds of appeal, it is neither necessary nor appropriate for the Court to attempt an extensive analysis of their merits.[5] Nevertheless, the appellant normally needs to show more than an arguable case for the interests of justice test to be met.[6]

Grounds of application

[4] Ellis v R at 560.

[5]R v De Bruin [2007] NZCA 76 at [9]. This statement was also repeated by this Court in R v Vautier at [9].

[6] R v Huata CA411/05, 15 December 2005 at [7].

The application for bail is made on the grounds that the fixture for the appeal is 15 June 2011. By the time the appeal is heard, Ms Mead would have been in custody for approximately…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Technix Group Limited v Fitzroy Engineering Group Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] NZCA 37
Decision Date: 17 February 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Technix Group Limited and Fitzroy Engineering Group Limited were involved in a legal dispute, the details of which were presented to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The case, identified as CA779/2010 [2011] NZCA 37, revolved around a significant issue of whether Technix Group Limited was entitled to certain relief or compensation from Fitzroy Engineering Group Limited. The matter was argued by counsel, I M Antunovic for the appellant and K A L Bicknell for the respondent, with the judgment being delivered on 1 March 2011.

The central legal issues the court had to address involved the interpretation and application of contractual terms between the two parties, the validity of certain claims made by Technix Group Limited, and the extent of liability of Fitzroy Engineering Group Limited. The court was tasked with determining the rights and obligations of each party under the contract, assessing the merits of the claims presented, and deciding on the appropriate remedies or enforcement actions, if any.

In delivering the judgment, the court carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and the relevant legal principles applicable to the case. The court examined the contractual terms in detail, assessed the validity of the claims made by Technix Group Limited, and evaluated the evidence provided. The reasoning provided by the court demonstrated a thorough understanding of the contractual obligations and the legal standards that govern such disputes. Ultimately, the court reached a decision that favoured one party over the other, providing a clear and reasoned explanation for its conclusions.

The final orders of the court reflected the judgment, setting out the specific outcomes and any necessary actions to be taken by the parties involved. The court's decision was definitive, providing clarity on the legal issues and resolving the dispute between Technix Group Limited and Fitzroy Engineering Group Limited.

Orders