Dai v Professional Conduct Committee of the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA83/2023
[2023] NZCA 363

BETWEEN	SANDY ZHUJUN DAI Applicant
AND	PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE OF THE NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS Respondent

Counsel:	Applicant in person R B Moon for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	14 August 2023 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF MILLER J
(Review of Registrar’s Decision)

The applications for review are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Ms Dai has sought a review of two decisions made by the Registrar.
The first was a decision of 27 March 2023 to decline to accept a second amended notice of appeal for filing on the ground that it introduced an appeal from an interlocutory decision to decline name suppression. The Registrar pointed out that Ms Dai must first seek leave to appeal from the High Court and drew attention to s 56 of the Senior Courts Act 2016.
The Registrar was correct to classify the name suppression judgment as interlocutory and correct to decline to accept an appeal against for filing until the question of leave had been resolved.
The second decision concerned an extension of time for filing the case on appeal under r 43(1B) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. One extension had already been granted under r 43. The Registrar pointed out that the extension was sought on the ground that Ms Dai was seeking leave to appeal or appealing to the Supreme Court against a decision on a review of a Registrar's decision, but no application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been accepted for filing. Rather, a Supreme Court Judge had declined to waive the filing fee for an application for leave to appeal. The Registrar cited Sixtus v Ardern.[1]
[1]Sixtus v Ardern [2023] NZCA 110.
Again, the Registrar was correct. There is no reason to distinguish Sixtus.
The applications for review are dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sandy Zhujun Dai has appealed against two decisions made by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The first issue concerns a decision of March 27, 2023, where the Registrar declined to accept a second amended notice of appeal for filing. This was due to the notice introducing an appeal from an interlocutory decision to decline name suppression. The Registrar correctly classified the name suppression judgment as interlocutory and required Ms Dai to first seek leave to appeal from the High Court, in accordance with section 56 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The second issue pertains to an extension of time for filing the case on appeal under rule 43(1B) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. The Registrar had already granted one extension under rule 43, but Ms Dai sought another extension on the basis that she was seeking leave to appeal or appealing to the Supreme Court against a decision on a review of a Registrar's decision. However, no application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court had been accepted for filing; instead, a Supreme Court Judge had declined to waive the filing fee for an application for leave to appeal. The Registrar cited the case of Sixtus v Ardern in support of their decision.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Registrar correctly declined to accept the second amended notice of appeal for filing and correctly declined to grant an extension of time for filing the case on appeal. The court found that the Registrar was correct in both decisions. In relation to the first issue, the court held that the Registrar correctly classified the name suppression judgment as interlocutory and correctly required Ms Dai to first seek leave to appeal from the High Court. In relation to the second issue, the court held that there was no reason to distinguish the case from Sixtus v Ardern, and that the Registrar was correct to decline the extension of time.

Ms Dai's applications for review were dismissed. The court held that the Registrar correctly declined to accept the second amended notice of appeal for filing and correctly declined to grant an extension of time for filing the case on appeal. The court found that the Registrar's decisions were in accordance with the relevant legislation and rules of court. As such, the applications for review were dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established