Clements v Auckland Council

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard two applications from Miriam Clements, who sought a review of decisions by the Registrar declining to waive filing fees for her appeals against the Auckland Council's decision to sell certain land, including a car parking area. Clements had previously sought judicial review in the High Court over the Council's decision, but her case was struck out for want of prosecution. Subsequently, she applied for an extension of time to appeal and filed an interlocutory application for a stay. Clements requested that the filing fees be waived, but the Registrar declined her request on two grounds: first, that she intended to prosecute the applications regardless of whether the fees were waived or not, and second, that the proceedings did not concern matters of genuine public interest. Clements sought a review of the Registrar's decisions, arguing that the proceedings raised important issues about the loss of the public's right to own property and that a substantial miscarriage of justice would occur if the case was not heard by the Court.

The Court of Appeal examined the grounds for the Registrar's decisions, noting that Regulation 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001 limits the Registrar's powers to waive fees on the grounds of public interest. The Court agreed with the Registrar that the proceedings in question did not satisfy the definition of a genuine public interest, as the focus of the appeal was on the specific issue of want of prosecution, which was not of general or public importance. Additionally, the Court noted that the Regulations also authorize the Registrar to waive a filing fee if paying the fee would cause the applicant undue hardship, but Clements had failed to provide supporting evidence of her impecuniosity.

The Court of Appeal declined the applications for review, upholding the Registrar's decisions not to waive the filing fees. The Court found that the Registrar was correct in declining the waiver on the first ground, as Clements had indicated she would start or continue with the proceedings even if the waiver was refused. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the Registrar that the proceedings did not raise a matter of genuine public interest, as the focus of the appeal was on a case-specific issue rather than a question of law of significant interest to the public or a substantial section of the public. The Court also noted that Clements had not provided sufficient evidence to support a claim of undue hardship. Therefore, the Court declined the applications for review, and Clements was required to pay the filing fees for her appeals.