Carl James Peterson v Attorney-General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 87/2015
[2015] NZSC 154

BETWEEN	CARL JAMES PETERSON Applicant
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person K Laurenson and M J McKillop for Respondent
Judgment:	23 October 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant, Mr Peterson, seeks leave to appeal directly to this Court against a decision of Associate Judge Christiansen striking out proceedings which he brought against the Attorney-General.[1] In the proceedings, Mr Peterson claimed that his rights under s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 were breached when the High Court made an order for an interim injunction against him and his company, Peterson Portable Sawing Systems Ltd, but did not require the giving of an undertaking as to damages, and that he suffered loss as a consequence. He sought damages in the amount of $3 million.
[1]Peterson v Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 1336.
Mr Peterson applied for a review of the Associate Judge’s decision, an application which, as we understand it, has not yet been determined. He also filed the present application.
The Attorney-General opposes the application, on the basis that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions on interlocutory applications in civil matters[2] and, in any event, the general requirements for the granting of leave are not met,[3] nor is the “exceptional circumstances” criterion for a direct appeal from the High Court to this Court.[4]
[2]Supreme Court Act 2003, s 8(c) and M v Minister of Immigration [2011] NZSC 154 at [2]–[3].
[3]Supreme Court Act, s 13.
[4]Section 14.
We consider that the Attorney-General’s submissions are correct. If Mr Peterson wishes to challenge the decision of Associate Judge Christiansen, he must pursue his application for review in the High Court.
Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Mr Peterson must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Carl James Peterson applied for leave to appeal against a decision of the Associate Judge that dismissed his proceedings against the Attorney-General. Peterson claimed that the High Court's order of an interim injunction against him and his company, without requiring an undertaking as to damages, breached his rights under section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and that he suffered loss as a consequence. The Attorney-General opposed the application, arguing that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions on interlocutory applications in civil matters, and that the general requirements for granting leave were not met, nor was there any exceptional circumstance warranting a direct appeal. The Court agreed with the Attorney-General's submissions and dismissed Peterson's application for leave to appeal, holding that Peterson must pursue his application for review in the High Court if he wished to challenge the Associate Judge's decision. Peterson was ordered to pay costs of $2,500 to the Attorney-General.

The legal issues the Court had to decide included whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions on interlocutory applications in civil matters and whether the general requirements for the grant of leave to appeal were met. The Court held that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear such appeals and that the general requirements for leave to appeal were not met. The Court further held that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting a direct appeal from the High Court to the Supreme Court.

The Court's reasoning was that the Supreme Court Act 2003 did not confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to hear appeals against decisions on interlocutory applications in civil matters, and the Court would only grant leave to appeal if the general requirements were met, or if there were exceptional circumstances warranting a direct appeal. The Court found that the general requirements for leave to appeal were not met and that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting a direct appeal. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The final orders were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and Peterson was ordered to pay costs of $2,500 to the Attorney-General.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established