Douglas John Williamson v Selwyn District Council

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 118/2009
[2010] NZSC 9

BETWEENDOUGLAS JOHN WILLIAMSON AND ANOR
Applicants

ANDSELWYN DISTRICT COUNCIL
Respondent

Court:Blanchard, McGrath and Wilson JJ
Counsel:Applicants in Person
W J Palmer and K M Foley for Respondent

Judgment:23 February 2010
Judgment re-issued: 26 February 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
[1]       The Court of Appeal's determination that it should make an order striking out the appeal to that Court because security for costs was not paid when due was plainly correct, both because the delay was not excusable and because, in any event, the appeal, even in the light of further material submitted by the applicant, lacked merit. The criteria in s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 are not met.
[2]       Furthermore, the application for leave to appeal to this Court was not brought in proper manner until more than 18 months after the decision in the Court of Appeal.
[3]       If the respondent seeks costs in this Court, it should make an application accordingly.
Solicitors:
Buddle Findlay, Christchurch for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of Douglas John Williamson and Anor against Selwyn District Council was considered. The applicants sought to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal that had dismissed their appeal on the basis that they had failed to pay security for costs within the required timeframe. The applicants then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which was ultimately dismissed. The case involved a dispute regarding the payment of security for costs and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the Court of Appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had a valid reason for their failure to pay the security for costs and whether their appeal to the Supreme Court was brought within the proper timeframe. The court had to determine if the delay in paying the security for costs was excusable and whether the criteria set out in section 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 were met. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was made in a timely manner.

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal's decision to strike out the appeal due to the failure to pay security for costs was correct, as the delay was not excusable and the appeal lacked merit. The court further held that the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was not brought within the proper timeframe, being more than 18 months after the decision of the Court of Appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the court indicated that if the respondent sought costs in this Court, they should make an application accordingly.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established