Crequer v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development

[2015] NZCA 623

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA414/2015
[2015] NZCA 623

BETWEEN	DAVID OWEN CREQUER Applicant
AND	THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Respondent

Court:	Randerson, French and Kós JJ
Judgment:	1 December 2015 at 10.00 am (On the papers)
Reissued:	18 December 2015 at 2.15 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe judgment of the Court dated 1 December 2015 ([2015] NZCA 582) is recalled.

BThe application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision not accepting the application for an extension of time for filing is declined.

C        The application for extension of time is not to be accepted for filing.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Kós J)

1. Our judgment of 1 December 2015 granted Mr Crequer’s application for review of a Deputy Registrar’s decision to refuse permission for a r 43(2) application for extension of time to be filed electronically.[1]

   [1]Crequer v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2015] NZCA 582.

2. We are advised by the Registry that Mr Crequer has not paid the filing fee on the original notice of appeal ($1,100).  A fee waiver application was dismissed, and a review application was also dismissed by Wild J on 11 August 2015.[2]

   [2]Crequer v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2015] NZCA 365.

3. In considering Mr Crequer’s later review application our attention was not drawn to reg 7(3) of the Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001:

   (3)Following a determination that has the effect referred to in subclause (2), the person responsible for paying the fee may not take a step in the proceeding to which the fee relates unless the fee is paid.

4. The effect of reg 7(3) was that Mr Crequer was not entitled to take any further step in the proceeding after 11 August 2015 without having paid the original filing fee for the appeal.  Mr Crequer’s application for extension of time was filed on 5 October 2015.

5. We sought further submissions from parties on this point.  The respondent opted not to file.  Having considered the submissions offered by Mr Crequer, we consider the effect of reg 7(3) is clear, is as stated at [4] and that no basis exists upon which an exception can or should be made for Mr Crequer.

6. It follows that we uphold the Deputy Registrar’s decision not to receive Mr Crequer’s application for extension of time, but for different reasons.

7. Accordingly:

   (a)we recall our judgment of 1 December 2015;

   (b)the application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision not accepting the application for an extension of time for filing is declined; and

   (c)the application for extension of time is not to be accepted for filing. 

8. For the avoidance of doubt, recall does not alter the efficacy of conclusions reached at [8] to [13] of our earlier judgment concerning the right to file applications (other than for leave to appeal) electronically.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent