Wood v Glover - [2015] NZCA 36

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA670/2014
[2015] NZCA 36

BETWEEN	JOHN LAING WOOD Applicant
AND	RAYMOND JOHN GLOVER Respondent

Hearing:	9 February 2015
Court:	Ellen France P, Randerson and White JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person J F R Anderson for Respondent
Judgment:	2 March 2015 at 12.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time is dismissed.
BThe applicant must pay the respondent costs for a standard application on a band A basis with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by White J)

Introduction

This is an application by Mr Wood for an extension of time under r 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 to file an application for leave to appeal against a decision of Ellis J declining his application under r 20.4 of the High Court Rules for an order extending the time for him to bring an appeal against a decision of Judge Blackie in the Manukau District Court.[1]
[1]Wood v Glover [2014] NZHC 738 [High Court decision] and Wood v Glover DC Manukau, CIV 2012-092-3837, 4 November 2013 [District Court decision].
Mr Wood’s District Court claim against Mr Glover was for conversion of a number of motor vehicles. Mr Wood sought recovery of the vehicles.
The vehicles had been imported into New Zealand under an agreement between Mr Wood and a company called Sanderson Investments Ltd owned by a Mr Sanderson who lived in Brisbane. The agreement provided that the vehicles remained the property of Sanderson Investments Ltd until settled from profits of sale to the end purchaser in New Zealand.
There is no dispute that Mr Glover took the vehicles from Mr Wood before they had been sold to an “end purchaser” in New Zealand and therefore at that time remained the property of Sanderson Investments Ltd.
Mr Glover’s defence was that he had been authorised to take possession of the vehicles by Mr Sanderson whose company owned them. On this basis Mr Glover said there could be no conversion.
In the District Court after a three day trial, during which the parties and Mr Sanderson gave evidence, Judge Blackie accepted Mr Glover’s defence and dismissed Mr Wood’s claim.[2]
[2]District Court decision, above n 1, at [56]–[57].
Mr Wood sought to appeal to the High Court against Judge Blackie’s decision, but failed to do so within the prescribed 20 working days, that is by 2 December 2013.[3] Instead, for various reasons relating to errors in service and delays in obtaining legal aid, Mr Wood’s appeal was not properly filed and served until 7 March 2014, some months out of time.
[3]High Court Rules, r 20.4(2)(b).
Mr Wood’s failure to file and serve his appeal within the prescribed period meant he had to apply to the High Court for special leave for an extension of time to appeal.
In the High Court Ellis J accepted that the delay had not been “particularly great”,[4] but decided that, as there was “no obvious error of…

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.

Continue reading Wood v Glover

Details

AGLC: Wood v Glover [2015] NZCA 36
Case: [2015] NZCA 36
Decision Date: 2 March 2015 at 12.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Wood v Glover, the applicant, John Laing Wood, sought an extension of time to appeal a decision of the High Court, which in turn declined his application for an extension of time to appeal a decision of the Manukau District Court. The District Court had dismissed Wood's claim against Raymond John Glover for conversion of motor vehicles. Wood argued that the District Court judge erred in finding Glover was authorised by Sanderson Investments Ltd to repossess the vehicles from him. The High Court declined Wood's application for an extension of time to appeal, finding that there was no obvious error by the District Court judge and that the interests of justice did not favour an extension of time. Wood then applied to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to appeal the High Court's decision, but his application was filed and served 155 and 158 days respectively out of time.

The Court of Appeal considered the test for granting an extension of time under r 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. The Court found that while some of Wood's reasons for delay were outside his control, he did not adequately explain the delays. Regarding the merits, the Court examined the District Court notes of evidence and found ample evidence to support the District Court judge's decision that Sanderson Investments Ltd authorised Glover to take possession of the vehicles. The Court concluded that Wood's appeal against the High Court's decision had no merit and did not favour an extension of time. The Court dismissed Wood's application for an extension of time and ordered him to pay Glover's costs for a standard application on a band A basis with usual disbursements.

Orders