A person or persons unknown v Tea Custodians (Bluestone) Limited

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, an application was brought by a person or persons unknown and Ngai-Tupango-Hapu Inc against Tea Custodians (Bluestone) Limited. The applicants sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal, which had refused to grant an extension of time to file a case on appeal and had allocated a hearing date. The applicants' appeal was deemed abandoned due to their failure to file within the stipulated time. The applicants also sought a waiver of the filing fee for their application for leave to appeal.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the application for leave to appeal raised matters within the Court's jurisdiction. The Court needed to determine if the application addressed the issues decided by the Court of Appeal or if it merely presented collateral matters not pertinent to the appeal. Additionally, the Court had to assess if the Registrar's decision to refuse the waiver of the filing fee was procedurally correct.

The Supreme Court found that the application for leave to appeal did not challenge the reasoning or decision of the Court of Appeal, but rather sought to argue incoherent constitutional theories. The Court held that it only had jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions of the Court of Appeal, and since the application did not touch upon the matters decided by the Court of Appeal, it did not raise a matter within the Court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the Registrar should have rejected the application for leave to appeal. As the application for leave was not within the Court's jurisdiction, the Registrar's decision to refuse the waiver of the filing fee was also procedurally incorrect. The Court set aside the Registrar's decision and directed the Registrar to return the application for leave to appeal as one not raising a matter within the Court's jurisdiction.