Boswell v Millar
Case
•
[2013] NZCA 219
•11 June 2013 at 10.00 am
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Boswell v Millar [2013] NZCA 219
[2013] NZCA 219
11 June 2013 at 10.00 am
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Kathryn Frances Boswell sought to appeal the decision of Katz J in the High Court, which dismissed her claims for breach of contract and a claim for refund of rent pursuant to consent orders. Boswell's claims arose from an alleged right to purchase part of Owen Ross Millar's land, which she had rented, and a subsequent settlement agreement effecting that purchase. Boswell applied to review the Registrar's decision declining to waive the $1,087.50 filing fee, made under regulation 5 of the Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001. The review was conducted under section 100B of the Judicature Act 1908. The Registrar declined the application for waiver on the basis that Boswell's situation did not meet the criteria for waiver, as she had valuable assets and the matter did not concern a matter of genuine public interest.
The court considered whether the appeal was of significant public interest, which it was not, as it concerned a private property dispute. The court also considered Boswell's contention that she would suffer undue financial hardship if required to pay the filing fee. Boswell provided further information regarding her financial position in support of the review. The court noted that Boswell's financial situation was not as dire as she suggested, as she had significant equity in the property and other assets that could be sold or used as security to raise funds to pay the filing fee. The court found that while Boswell would suffer some financial hardship, it was not undue and dismissed the application for review.
The court's decision to decline to waive the filing fee was based on the fact that Boswell had not demonstrated undue financial hardship and the matter was not of significant public interest. The court found that Boswell's financial situation was not as dire as she suggested and that she had other assets that could be used to raise funds to pay the filing fee. The court dismissed the application for review and Boswell was required to pay the filing fee if she wished the appeal to proceed.
The court considered whether the appeal was of significant public interest, which it was not, as it concerned a private property dispute. The court also considered Boswell's contention that she would suffer undue financial hardship if required to pay the filing fee. Boswell provided further information regarding her financial position in support of the review. The court noted that Boswell's financial situation was not as dire as she suggested, as she had significant equity in the property and other assets that could be sold or used as security to raise funds to pay the filing fee. The court found that while Boswell would suffer some financial hardship, it was not undue and dismissed the application for review.
The court's decision to decline to waive the filing fee was based on the fact that Boswell had not demonstrated undue financial hardship and the matter was not of significant public interest. The court found that Boswell's financial situation was not as dire as she suggested and that she had other assets that could be used to raise funds to pay the filing fee. The court dismissed the application for review and Boswell was required to pay the filing fee if she wished the appeal to proceed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Limitation Periods
-
Standing
-
Costs
-
Judicial Review
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Boswell v Millar [2013] NZCA 219
Most Recent Citation
Opai v Attorney-General [2018] NZHC 1540
Cases Citing This Decision
14
Clements v Queen of England
[2018] NZCA 581
Clements v Auckland Council
[2018] NZCA 579
Sameer v Conroy Removals Limited
[2018] NZCA 499
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Boswell v Millar
[2013] NZHC 703
Appleton v Tauranga Law
[2012] NZHC 242
New Zealand Cards Ltd v Ramsay
[2013] NZCA 72