Deliu v Independent Police Conduct Authority

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 28/2025
[2025] NZSC 79

BETWEEN	FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU Applicant
AND	INDEPENDENT POLICE CONDUCT AUTHORITY Respondent

Court:	Williams, Kós and Miller JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person S B McCusker and E L Dallas for Respondent
Judgment:	8 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks leave to appeal a decision by Mallon J in the Court of Appeal (acting under s 49(6) of the Senior Courts Act 2016) in which that Judge declined an application to review the Deputy Registrar’s refusal to reduce or dispense with security for costs.[1]
[1]Deliu v Independent Police Conduct Authority [2025] NZCA 26 [CA judgment].
The underlying proceeding relates to judicial review of a decision of the respondent, the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA). The applicant complained about comments a police officer had reportedly made about him to a third party. Upon considering the complaint, the IPCA determined not to take any further action on the basis that the reported comments, even if made, did not amount to misconduct or neglect of duty. This view was upheld in the High Court by Wilkinson‑Smith J.[2] The applicant now appeals the judgment of the High Court.
[2]Deliu v Independent Police Conduct Authority [2024] NZHC 2334.
On review of the security for costs decision, Mallon J considered the Deputy Registrar was correct and determined this was not a case where an award of costs against the applicant was unlikely if he was unsuccessful.[3] The Judge also agreed that the fact the proceeding sought to hold a senior police officer to account did not in itself give rise to an issue of public importance requiring the IPCA to defend the appeal without the benefit of security for costs. Finally, the Judge confirmed the Deputy Registrar’s determinations that the appeal would not have been pursued by a reasonable, solvent litigant and that it lacked merit.
[3]CA judgment, above n 1, at [6].
The grounds of proposed appeal are that Mallon J did no more than rubberstamp the Deputy Registrar’s decision and failed to engage with the specific grounds of review, and that in any event the judgment was plainly wrong.
In submissions the applicant referred to this Court’s decision in Reekie v Attorney-General and various ancient statutes of the Parliament of England, and submitted that his entitlement to reasons was breached by the “paucity, if not dearth, of any explanation” in Mallon J’s judgment.[4]
[4]Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63, [2014] 1 NZLR 737.
Counsel for the respondent opposes leave, submitting that the requirements of s 74 of the Senior Courts Act are not met.

Analysis

No matter of general or public importance arises in this case, nor is there any risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice should leave not be granted.[5] The issues raised concern procedural matters affecting only the applicant, and we see no evident error in the judgment of Mallon J. It is not therefore necessary in the interests of justice for this Court to hear and determine the proposed appeal.[6] The application will be dismissed accordingly.

Result

[5]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(a)–(b).

[6]Section 74(1).

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

Solicitors:
Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Francisc Catalin Deliu, has sought leave to appeal against a decision of Mallon J in the Court of Appeal, who declined to review the Deputy Registrar’s refusal to reduce or dispense with security for costs in an underlying judicial review proceeding against the Independent Police Conduct Authority. The Court of Appeal’s judgment followed the High Court’s decision in the original proceeding, which upheld the IPCA’s determination not to take any further action on Deliu’s complaint about comments made by a police officer. The applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s judgment is still pending. The applicant’s proposed grounds of appeal focus on the Court of Appeal’s review of the security for costs decision, contending that the Court of Appeal failed to adequately engage with the grounds of review and that its judgment was plainly wrong. The respondent opposes the application, arguing that it does not meet the criteria for leave to appeal under section 74 of the Senior Courts Act 2016.

The Court found that no matter of general or public importance was involved in the proposed appeal, nor was there a risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice if leave was not granted. The issues raised were procedural and affected only the applicant. The Court concluded that there was no evident error in the Court of Appeal’s judgment and that it was not necessary in the interests of justice for the Supreme Court to hear and determine the proposed appeal. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed, with the applicant ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of $2,500.

This decision reinforces the stringent criteria for leave to appeal in New Zealand, emphasising that the Court will only grant leave if the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance or if there is a risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice. In this case, the Court found that neither condition was met, and the proposed appeal did not present any issues that warranted the Court’s intervention. The dismissal of the application and the order for costs serve as a reminder of the importance of meeting the statutory requirements for leave to appeal and the consequences of failing to do so.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established