We have updated our website and myADLS. To access your myADLS account, please reset your password by using the “Forgot password” option or Click Here. If you need further assistance, contact us at helpdesk@adls.org.nz or 09 871 1385.

Back Home 5 News 5 The perils of self-representation: how not to run an appeal

The perils of self-representation: how not to run an appeal

17 Mar 2023

| Author: Fiona Wu

Senior Courts Act 2016 – unsuccessful leave application – application for leave to appeal to Supreme Court against Court of Appeal judgment refusing leave to appeal interlocutory matters to Court of Appeal – self-represented litigant – leave criteria not met – related to particular circumstances – no matters of public or general importance – not necessary to determine appeal before substantive appeal – application dismissed.

Wu v Stalix Property Ltd [2023] NZSC 2 (Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ) 

The respondents, Stalix Property Limited and Stress Free Chairs, Dining and Lounge Limited, are the registered proprietors of a property in Christchurch.  Yihenga Wu, the self-represented applicant, was formerly one of the registered proprietors and refused to vacate the property.

In 2022, the High Court made an order granting the respondents possession of the property (Stalix Property Ltd v Wu [2022] NZHC 1928).  Wu appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal.

In addition to the appeal against the substantive decision, Wu filed two interlocutory applications asking for answers to a number of questions.  The first application was not accepted for filing as it concerned proceedings not at issue in the appeal, and the second application was refused by Brown J, who noted that the Court of Appeal “does not answer questions in the nature of interrogatories” prior to hearing an appeal and, in any event, Wu’s questions were unrelated to the present appeal but sought to rely on an argument previously advanced and rejected in the High Court.

Applicable principles – consideration of criteria for leave to appeal to Supreme Court – s 74 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 – adopted threshold required for miscarriage of justice in civil cases per `Junior Farms Ltd v Hampton Securities Ltd (in liq) [2006] NZSC 60 – whether necessary to hear appeal on interlocutory matters before substantive appeal – costs.

Held:  Application for leave to appeal is discussed. The criteria for leave are not met as the application “relates to particular circumstances of this case and no matter of public or general importance or commercial significance arises. Nor is there any risk of a miscarriage of justice.”  Furthermore, it is not necessary to hear and determine this proposed appeal before the Court of Appeal determines the substantive appeal.

Subscribe to LawNews

The weekly online publication is full of journalistic articles written for those in the legal profession. With interviews, thought pieces, case notes and analysis of current legal events, LawNews is a key source of news and insights for anyone working within or alongside the legal field.

Sign in or
become a Member
to join the discussion.


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Articles

Gloriavale wins fight to keep its bank accounts – for now

In July 2022, the Bank of New Zealand (BNZ) gave notice of its intention to terminate its banking relationship with various companies and entities associated with the Christian Church Community Trust, more commonly known as the Gloriavale Christian Community.

read more