Charlton v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA9/06
BETWEENPHILIP CHARLTON

Applicant

ANDCHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Respondent

Counsel:T McGurk for Applicant

Judgment:28 March 2006

(On the papers)

JUDGMENT OF CHAMBERS J

The decision of the deputy registrar dated 7 February 2006 is confirmed.
REASONS
[1]       Philip Charlton has applied for a review of the deputy registrar’s decision refusing to waive the filing fee on his application for special leave to appeal to this court. The registrar was not satisfied that the proceeding raised a question of law of significant interest to the public or to a substantial section of the public: see Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001, reg 5.
[2]       I am satisfied that the registrar’s decision was correct. Mr Charlton has been unsuccessful in his arguments before the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development, the Benefits’ Review Committee, the Social Security Appeal Authority, and the High Court. The High Court declined leave to appeal to this court on several grounds, including that the proposed questions were not questions of law. Although the questions have been tweaked for the purposes of the outstanding application for special leave to appeal to this court, the basic arguments remain the same.
[3]       Mr Charlton has now had a number of bites at the cherry. If he wants to try to obtain what will effectively be a fourth appeal, he will have to pay the filing fee. I am not convinced that the matters he wishes to raise are of significant interest to a substantial section of the public. If the Combined Beneficiaries Union Inc is of a different view, as Ms Capel avers, then it may be able to assist Mr Charlton in the payment of the fee.
[4]       The view I have expressed as to public interest will in no way affect, let alone bind, the court which will determine the application for special leave on 19 June. Indeed, that court will not know of this decision. If that court grants leave to pursue the appeal, then Mr Charlton may apply afresh for waiver of the fees that would otherwise be payble on filing the notice of appeal and setting down for hearing.
Solicitors:
Otene & Ellis, Onehunga, Auckland, for Applicant

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Philip Charlton sought to appeal the decision of the deputy registrar who refused to waive the filing fee for his application for special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The deputy registrar's decision was based on the premise that the proceeding did not raise a question of law of significant interest to the public or a substantial section of the public, as per the Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001. Charlton had already unsuccessfully argued his case before several authorities, including the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development, the Benefits’ Review Committee, the Social Security Appeal Authority, and the High Court. The High Court had declined leave to appeal on the grounds that the proposed questions were not questions of law. Despite some modifications to these questions for the application for special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, the core arguments remained unchanged.

The court was required to decide whether the proceeding raised a question of law of significant interest to the public or a substantial section of the public, thereby justifying a waiver of the filing fee. The court needed to evaluate the public interest aspect of Charlton's application and determine if the issues he wished to raise warranted such a waiver. The court also had to consider whether Charlton's multiple unsuccessful appeals indicated that he should bear the cost of a further appeal.

In confirming the deputy registrar's decision, the court held that Charlton had been unsuccessful in his arguments before various authorities, and his proposed questions of law did not meet the threshold for public interest as required by the regulations. The court was not convinced that the matters Charlton wished to raise were of significant interest to a substantial section of the public. The court emphasised that its decision regarding public interest would not bind or affect the future determination of the application for special leave to appeal. If the application for special leave was granted, Charlton could then apply afresh for a waiver of the fees associated with filing the notice of appeal and setting down for hearing.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established