Interlocutory application — protest to jurisdiction — application made under repealed legislation — interests of justice — whether proceedings void ab initio — amendment of application — Interpretation Act 1999, s 17 — District Court Rules 2014, r 5.51 — District Courts Act 1947 s 31 — District Court Act 2016, s 79 — Retail Trading Services v Morris (1997) 11 PRNZ 164 (HC). The plaintiffs filed an application for Summary Judgment seeking the recovery of land. The defendant, pursuant to Rule 5.51 District Court Rules, appeared to object to the jurisdiction of the District Court to hear the proceeding as it was filed under a repealed section - s 31 as opposed to the new section, s 79. The issues for the court were: 1. are the proceedings void ab initio? 2. should the court grant the plaintiffs' application to amend the statement of claim pursuant to rule 1.12? 3. can an interlocutory application for summary judgment be amended? The court found that the repeal of the District Courts Act 1947 does not mean that the plaintiffs have lost their rights under that Act. They are preserved by s 17 Interpretation Act 1999. The proceedings are therefore not void ab initio. The court was also satisfied that amending the proceedings would be in the interests of justice, and that the error arose as a matter of oversight. While r 1.12 does not allow for an amendment of an interlocutory application it does not necessarily follow that an interlocutory application is incapable of amendment. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file their amended interlocutory application for Summary Judgment, so that the reference to the statutory provision relied on is correctly identified as "s 79" and dismissed the defendant's protest to jurisdiction. Judgment Date: 1 December 2017