Adamson v Robinson

NOTE: ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH
SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 122/2023
[2024] NZSC 3

BETWEEN	IAN ADAMSON AND KATE JONES Applicants
AND	JAMES ROBINSON Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Kós JJ
Counsel:	Applicants in person C J Nicholls for Respondent
Judgment:	5 February 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
BThe applicants must pay the respondent one set of costs of $2,500.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicants seek leave to appeal a decision of Gilbert J in the Court of Appeal declining review of a decision of a Deputy Registrar not to extend time to apply to dispense with security for costs.[1] The underlying claim in the High Court was an application for habeas corpus, purportedly on behalf of a child subject to an interim parenting order made by the Family Court.[2] The order gives day-to-day care of the child to Ms Jones and some weekend and holiday contact to Mr Robinson.
[1]Adamson v Robinson [2023] NZCA 531 [CA judgment].
[2]Adamson v Robinson [2023] NZHC 2115 (Gwyn J).
The proposed appeal does not meet the criteria for leave. As Miller J had earlier observed in the Court of Appeal, the appeal there was an attempt to relitigate a parenting order made by the Family Court when the applicants had a remedy in that Court.[3] The proposed appeal in this Court would turn on its own facts and involves no matter of general or public importance.[4] The Treaty of Waitangi argument now advanced by the applicants does not alter that conclusion where there is nothing to suggest security for costs was set here without due (and therefore equal) regard to economic capacity. There is no apparent substantial miscarriage of justice arising from the decision below.[5] It is not therefore necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to hear and determine the appeal.[6]

Result

[3]See CA judgment, above n 1, at [3].

[4]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(a).

[5]Section 74(2)(b).

[6]Section 74(1).

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants must pay the respondent one set of costs of $2,500.

Solicitors:
Chris Nicholls, Lower Hutt for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ian Adamson and Kate Jones sought leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal, which had declined to review a decision of the Deputy Registrar not to extend the time for applying to dispense with security for costs in a habeas corpus case. The underlying dispute involves an interim parenting order made by the Family Court, granting Ms Jones day-to-day care of their child and some contact to Mr Robinson. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed an attempt to relitigate the parenting order, indicating that the applicants had a remedy in the Family Court. The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether the proposed appeal met the criteria for leave to appeal, including whether it involved a matter of general or public importance, or if there was a substantial miscarriage of justice. The applicants also advanced a Treaty of Waitangi argument, which the Court found did not alter the conclusion that the appeal did not meet the necessary criteria.

The Supreme Court considered whether the appeal met the criteria for leave under the Senior Courts Act 2016. The Court found that the appeal did not involve a matter of general or public importance, nor did it present a substantial miscarriage of justice. The Court noted that the applicants had an available remedy in the Family Court and that the proposed appeal was an attempt to relitigate a parenting order. Additionally, the Court found that the applicants' Treaty of Waitangi argument did not change the outcome. The Court concluded that it was not necessary in the interests of justice for the Supreme Court to hear and determine the appeal. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicants to pay the respondent one set of costs amounting to $2,500. The Court emphasised that the applicants had a remedy available to them in the Family Court and that the proposed appeal did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal under the Senior Courts Act 2016. The Court also found that there was no substantial miscarriage of justice arising from the decision of the Court of Appeal. As a result, the applicants were not granted leave to appeal, and they were ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

This decision underscores the importance of the criteria for leave to appeal and the Court's reluctance to allow appeals that merely seek to relitigate issues already decided by a lower court. The Court's decision also highlights the need for parties to pursue available remedies within the appropriate court rather than attempting to circumvent the process through an appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established