Brougham v Regan and Tuffin

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 104/2019
[2019] NZSC 143

BETWEEN	BRYCE BROUGHAM Applicant
AND	CHRISTINE ANNA ELIZABETH REGAN AND MARK JEFFEREY TUFFIN AS TRUSTEES OF THE WINCHESTER TRUST First Respondent RACHAEL CHRISTINA DEY Second Respondent

Court:	Winkelmann CJ and Glazebrook J
Counsel:	F E Geiringer and J K Mahuta‑Coyle for Applicant F A King for First Respondent S A McKenna for Second Respondent
Judgment:	12 December 2019

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AAn extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.

BLeave to appeal is granted (Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401).

CThe approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was right to allow the appeal to that Court.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

We are satisfied that an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal should be granted, despite the opposition of the first respondent. The application was filed only a few days after the expiry of the appeal period and it is clear that there has been no prejudice to the respondents as a result of the short delay.

Solicitors:
Macalister Mazengarb, Wellington for Applicant
Grantham Law, Hamilton for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bryce Brougham sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against a decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal. The case involves a dispute between Brougham and Christine Anna Elizabeth Regan and Mark Jeffery Tuffin as trustees of the Winchester Trust, along with Rachael Christina Dey as the second respondent. The Supreme Court of New Zealand, comprised of Winkelmann CJ and Glazebrook J, was tasked with determining the application. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the extension of time to apply for leave to appeal should be granted, despite opposition from the first respondent.

The Court found that the application for an extension of time was filed only a few days after the expiry of the appeal period, and it was evident that no prejudice had resulted from the short delay. Consequently, the Court granted the application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal. Furthermore, leave to appeal was granted, and the approved ground of appeal was whether the Court of Appeal was correct in allowing the appeal to that Court. The Court's decision was based on the balance of convenience and the lack of prejudice to the respondents due to the short delay in filing the application.

The final orders of the Court were to grant an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal and to grant leave to appeal, with the approved ground being whether the Court of Appeal was correct in allowing the appeal to that Court. The decision allows Brougham to pursue his appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision, providing him with the opportunity to challenge the earlier ruling in the Supreme Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established