Ruling in separation matter acknowledges man’s ‘familiarity with civil procedure’
In upholding a refusal to extend the time for an applicant to file leave applications in a family matter, the New Zealand Supreme Court acknowledged his legal training and “familiarity with civil procedure,” as seen in his Court of Appeal and High Court applications.
In Gold v Green [2026] NZSC 111, the parties separated, which led to Family Court proceedings that commenced in 2021. In March 2023, the Family Court made final protection and parenting orders concerning their child, both favouring the respondent.
The High Court dismissed the appeal of the applicant, who unsuccessfully attempted to discharge the protection order.
Before the Court of Appeal, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against the High Court of New Zealand’s substantive and interlocutory decisions. He filed these leave applications around 12 months out of time.
While the leave applications raised issues important to both parties, the appeal court saw no issues of general or public importance justifying leave, and no legal question raised, which was “fatal” because an application for leave to appeal from a protection order was limited to questions of law.
The appeal court refused an extension of time for the applicant to file the leave applications. In light of the nature of the proceedings and the significant and insufficiently explained delay, the appeal court held that granting an extension would cause some prejudice to the respondent and would not serve the interests of justice.
In making its decision, the appeal court considered the ongoing Family Court proceedings regarding potential amendments to the parenting order.
Before the Supreme Court, the applicant applied for leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal decision. The Supreme Court denied leave to appeal upon determining that the applicant failed to satisfy the pertinent criteria.
The Supreme Court did not award costs, as the respondent had not made any submissions on the application for leave to appeal due to the lack of resources.
The Supreme Court provided four bases for upholding the Court of Appeal’s decision. First, the Supreme Court found no reason to reconsider the appeal court’s assessment of the factors in the settled test for an extension of time in Almond v Read [2017] NZSC 80.
The Supreme Court noted that the appeal court had given some leeway to the applicant, as a self‑represented litigant, when assessing his explanation for the delay. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court declined to address the issues of neurodiversity that he asserted.
Second, the Supreme Court ruled that the appeal court correctly considered the applicant’s explanation in the context of the significant delay and the pending Family Court proceedings, which engaged the child’s welfare and best interests.
Third, the Supreme Court noted that the Court of Appeal ruling considered various factors and subsequent events, including the Family Court’s recent refusal to discharge the final protection order.
Fourth, the Supreme Court saw no error in the appeal court’s assessment of the merits. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court pointed out that:
Here are some other recent Supreme Court of New Zealand decisions revolving around family matters.
In proceedings involving separated parties, the Supreme Court issued a 10 June 2026 decision denying leave to appeal against a decision to issue an order under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, which the respondent had sought to restrain the applicant from commencing or continuing civil proceedings against her.
The Supreme Court made a 22 May 2026 decision dismissing an application for leave to appeal from a decision affirming orders to refer proceedings arising from a family trust dispute to alternative dispute resolution processes under s 145 of the Trusts Act 2019.
Following the Family Court of New Zealand’s rejection of a request for a safety hearing, the Supreme Court issued an 11 February 2026 decision emphasising how misusing artificial intelligence (AI) in legal proceedings had serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
