IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 71/2013 [2013] NZSC 107
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 71/2013 [2013] NZSC 107
BETWEEN
MICHAEL VICTOR BOURNEVILLE AND MARK GRAHAM BLEWDEN Applicants
AND
CHRISTINE JILL MARSHALL Respondent
Court:
McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:
B P C Carter for Applicants A Hart for Respondent
Judgment:
8 November 2013
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
A
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B
The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and
reasonable disbursements.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS
[1] The proposed appeal concerns a caveat lodged by Ms Marshall against the title of a property owned by the applicant trustees. Associate Judge Osborne refused an application by her for an order that the caveat not lapse.1 The Court of Appeal subsequently allowed Ms Marshall's appeal and the applicants wish to appeal to this Court against the latter decision.2
[2] The principal question before the Associate Judge was whether Ms Marshall's claim to an equitable interest in the property was arguable. For this reason, the proposed appeal is interlocutory in character, if not necessarily so in
1 Marshall v Bourneville [2012] NZHC 2547. 2 Marshall v Bourneville [2013] NZCA 271. MICHAEL VICTOR BOURNEVILLE AND MARK GRAHAM BLEWDEN v CHRISTINE JILL MARSHALL [2013] NZSC 107 [8 November 2013]
form, with the result that s 13(4) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 is relevant. Viewed through the s 13(4) lens, the issue is whether the proposed appeal raises any issue which it is necessary, in the interests of justice, for this Court to determine before trial.
[3] The most plausible basis for arguing that this test is met is the applicants' submission that Ms Marshall's claim to an equitable interest is an abuse of process given the earlier proceedings under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. We accept that an abuse of process argument raises the sort of issues which are often ? perhaps usually ? best addressed before trial. On the other hand, the present circumstances are very unusual and a complete evaluation of the abuse of process argument may well require a more detailed understanding of the facts than is available on the material which was placed before the Associate Judge. Indeed, on the basis of the submissions which were advanced, we are not confident that the abuse of process argument would be able to be dealt with completely and fairly on that material.
[4] Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Solicitors: Morgan Coakle, Auckland for Applicants Parnell Law, Auckland for Respondent
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- 507 537 6931 fax dear parent guardian marshall
- model school district policy on suicide prevention model
- kilsyth academy handbook
- late quaternary climatic controls on erosion rates and
- marshall university dual credit
- marshall university fundamentals of speech communication
- 2000 house joint resolution 671 by beavers
- water resources division michigan
- assessing preventing and overcoming reading difficulties
- publications
Related searches
- new york supreme court reporters
- supreme court of new york
- was the supreme court always 9
- new york supreme court case search
- new york supreme court cases online search
- supreme court of idaho
- supreme court new york case search
- supreme court of nevada cases
- supreme court of nevada case search
- supreme court of georgia probate court forms
- us district court of new york
- new york supreme court criminal case search