This Court does not have jurisdiction to hear CA726/2023, as it is an appeal from interlocutory decisions, and leave to appeal was neither sought nor granted.
CA726/2023 should not have been accepted for filing.
CA726/2023 is, for the avoidance of doubt, struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Solicitors:
Shieff Angland, Auckland for Respondent

Details

AGLC: Tomar v Khatri [2024] NZCA 13
Case: [2024] NZCA 13
Decision Date: 14 February 2024 at 10.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vin Tomar filed an appeal against Monika Khatri in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The nature of the dispute was not specified in the judgment, but it related to interlocutory decisions. The Court of Appeal, comprising Goddard and Mallon JJ, heard the case on the papers. The appellant represented himself, while D M Brabant appeared for the respondent.

The legal issue before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the interlocutory decisions. The court needed to determine if it had the authority to hear the appeal when leave to appeal was neither sought nor granted. This was a matter of procedural law, focusing on the court's jurisdictional limits.

The Court of Appeal ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court emphasised that it does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory decisions unless leave to appeal has been sought and granted. The court found that the appeal should not have been accepted for filing and accordingly struck out the appeal for want of jurisdiction. This decision was given on the papers, without a hearing.

The final order of the court was that the appeal, CA726/2023, was struck out for want of jurisdiction. The court clarified that this decision was final and binding, leaving no room for further appeal. The court's reasoning was based on the procedural requirement that leave to appeal must be obtained before an appeal from interlocutory decisions can be heard.

Orders