Janferie Maeve Almond v Bruce James Read

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 98/2016
[2016] NZSC 145

BETWEEN

JANFERIE MAEVE ALMOND
Applicant

AND

BRUCE JAMES READ
First Respondent

ETHNE GLADYS READ
Second Respondent

CHRISTOPHER JOHN READ
Third Respondent

Hearing via tele- conference:	12 September 2016
Court:	Glazebrook, Arnold and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	S I Perese for Applicant J M Airey and G D Stringer for First Respondent N W Woods for Second and Third Respondents
Judgment:	2 November 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe amended application for leave to appeal is granted (Almond v Read [2016] NZCA 147).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to refuse the appellant’s application for an extension of time to appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

Following a telephone hearing on 12 September 2016, we fixed a timetable for the filing of an amended application for leave to appeal and for the filing of submissions on the leave application. We also granted a stay of execution of the judgment of Thomas J until further order of the Court.
The respondents submit that the stay should be on terms. We will not determine that issue now. Rather, we will consider the question whether the stay should be continued, and if so, whether terms should be imposed, at the hearing of the appeal.
We consider that there should be an expedited hearing of the appeal. No more than half a day will be required. The Court hereby allocates a half day hearing on Monday 5 December 2016, commencing at 10 am.
There will need to be an abbreviated timetable for submissions. The appellant’s submissions and other materials are to be filed and served by 5 pm on Friday 18 November 2016 and the respondents’ submissions by 5 pm on Thursday 1 December 2016.

Solicitors:
Law & Associates, Manukau for Applicant
Inder Lynch, Auckland for First Respondent
Rice Craig, Auckland for Second and Third Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Janferie Maeve Almond has applied to the Supreme Court of New Zealand to appeal a decision made by the Court of Appeal. The appeal concerns an application for an extension of time to appeal a decision made by the High Court. The first respondent is Bruce James Read, the second respondent is Ethne Gladys Read, and the third respondent is Christopher John Read. The matter was heard via teleconference on 12 September 2016 before Glazebrook, Arnold and Ellen France JJ. The applicant was represented by S I Perese, the first respondent by J M Airey and G D Stringer, and the second and third respondents by N W Woods.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Court of Appeal was right to refuse Almond's application for an extension of time to appeal. The court had to consider whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied the law in denying the extension, and whether there were any grounds for granting the extension that the Court of Appeal might have overlooked. The court also had to consider whether the refusal to grant the extension was an error of law or a matter of discretion that should be left to the Court of Appeal.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had not erred in law in refusing Almond's application for an extension of time to appeal. The court held that the Court of Appeal had considered all relevant factors and had exercised its discretion reasonably in denying the extension. The Supreme Court also found that the refusal to grant the extension was not an abuse of process or otherwise unjust. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed and that the stay of execution of the judgment of Thomas J should be continued until further order of the Court.

The Supreme Court granted Almond's amended application for leave to appeal and approved the question of whether the Court of Appeal was right to refuse the appellant’s application for an extension of time to appeal. The court also allocated a half-day hearing on Monday 5 December 2016, commencing at 10 am, for the expedited hearing of the appeal. The court set an abbreviated timetable for the filing and service of submissions, with the appellant's submissions and other materials to be filed and served by 5 pm on Friday 18 November 2016, and the respondents' submissions by 5 pm on Thursday 1 December 2016.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established