Anderson v NZI International Acceptances Limited

[2020] NZCA 540

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA242/05
 [2020] NZCA 540

BETWEEN	STEPHEN GILBERT ANDERSON Appellant
AND	NZI INTERNATIONAL ACCEPTANCES LIMITED, NZ SECURITIES LIMITED AND NZI FINANCE LIMITED Respondents

Court:	Brown J
Counsel:	Appellant in person
Judgment: (On the papers)	2 November 2020 at 3.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF BROWN J
(Review of Deputy Registrar’s decision)

The application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision to decline to accept an informal application for filing is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. On 22 September 2020 Mr Anderson filed an informal application under r 10B of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 (the Rules) requesting this Court to inter alia:

   [C]onsider the facts and circumstances surrounding the decision of the Official Assignee to disclaim [Mr Anderson’s] farm property while an injunction was in place on the land and in doing so acting like ‘Pontius Pilate’ and ignoring the interim injunction in place on the land.

2. The Deputy Registrar declined to accept the application for filing, explaining:

   You have purported to file an informal application to the court inviting the Court of Appeal to review decisions of the High Court in relation to your proceeding.  You make reference to rule 10B of the Court of Appeal (Civil) rules 2005.  Rule 10B only applies where the “rules, or a judgment, order, minute or other direction of the Court, provide for a party or other person to make an informal application.”  In essence, it only applies where another rule or order of a judge provides that an informal application may be made.  Rule 10B does not provide a ‘blanket provision’ allowing any application to come in informally.

   If you wish this Court to revisit your matter, you will need to file an application to recall the previous decision.  This will need to come in by way of a formal application and will need to be accompanied by the required $400 filing fee or an application for fee waiver.

   For the above reason, what you have provided is rejected for filing as there is no jurisdiction to accept it.

3. Mr Anderson applied for a review by a Judge of the Deputy Registrar’s decision under r 5(3)(a) of the Rules.

4. Mr Anderson’s r 10B request was headed:  “A new approach without directly involving my earlier 2006 Appeal”.  The reference to his earlier appeal was to this Court’s decision of 16 March 2006[1] dismissing an appeal from a decision of Chisholm J delivered on 20 October 2005.

   [1]Anderson v NZI International Acceptances Ltd CA242/05, 16 March 2006.

5. As this Court’s decision explained:

   [2]       The matter before Chisholm J purported to be an application for an order giving directions before setting down, in reliance on r 437 of the High Court Rules.  By that application, Mr Anderson was effectively seeking that a proceeding in which an interim injunction had been granted by Holland J on 19 November 1987, should be set down for substantive hearing, notwithstanding that no action had been taken in that proceeding in the intervening period of almost 18 years, and notwithstanding that there had been a fundamental change to the facts that were considered by Holland J.

6. By his recent application Mr Anderson seeks to revisit matters of some antiquity.  That course cannot be achieved by the vehicle of a r 10B informal application.  As the Deputy Registrar correctly advised Mr Anderson, the procedural route for the revisitation he contemplates would be by an application for recall of this Court’s 2006 decision.  In order to do so he would need to establish one of the grounds for recall in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2).[2]

   [2]Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC).

7. In my view the Deputy Registrar was correct to decline to accept Mr Anderson’s informal application for filing.  Mr Anderson’s application for review of that decision is declined.