Easton v Attorney-General

[2016] NZHC 217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2016-000-0000

[2016] NZHC 217

UNDER THE

Judicature Amendment Act 1972 Judicature Act 1908 s 100B

BETWEEN

BENJAMIN MORLAND EASTON

Applicant

AND

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

On the papers
Judgment:	18 February 2016

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 February 2016 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

EASTON v ATTORNEY GENERAL [2016] NZHC 217 [18 February 2016]

[1]                 Mr Easton applies under s 100B of the Judicature Act 1908 for a review of the Registrar’s decision not to waive a fee. Reviews under this section are by way of rehearing and, unless the Judge otherwise directs, dealt with on the papers.1

[2]                 Mr Easton’s substantive application, dated 13 January 2016 is unclear as to the legal basis for his claim. The claim is in relation to his adult daughter, who has a protection order against him and is in hospital. The hospital refused him access to his daughter. He appears to be seeking a judicial review of the hospital’s failure to provide him information relevant to his exercise of guardianship of his daughter; a stay of proceedings in relation to a criminal trial of an associate for breach of protection order; and clarification of the meaning of s 3 of the Domestic Violence Act 1995.

[3]                 He applied for a fee waiver in respect of the application, on the basis that the proceeding relates to a matter of genuine public interest. This was declined by the High Court Manager and Registrar on 14 January 2016, on the basis that she was not satisfied, on the evidence provided, that the issues or questions of law are of significant interest to the public (or to a substantial section of the public).

[4]                 Mr Easton now applies for a review of that decision. The High Court Fees Regulations 2013 relevantly provide:

18 Power to waive fees

(1)  A person otherwise responsible for the payment of a fee required in connection with a proceeding or an intended proceeding may apply to a Registrar for a waiver of the fee.

(2)  The Registrar may waive the fee payable by the person if satisfied,—

(a)  on the basis of one of the criteria specified in regulation 19, that the person is unable to pay the fee; or

(b)  that the proceeding,—

(i)  on the basis of one of the criteria specified in regulation 20, concerns a matter of genuine public interest; and

1      Judicature Act 1908, s 100B(4).

(ii)  is unlikely to be commenced or continued unless the fee is waived.

(3)  An application under subclause (1) must be made in a form approved for the purpose by the chief executive of the Ministry of Justice unless, in a particular case, the Registrar considers that an application in that form is not necessary.

[5]Regulation 20 sets out the criteria as follows:

20 Criteria for determining when proceeding concerns matter of genuine public interest

For the purposes of these regulations, a proceeding that concerns a matter of genuine public interest is—

(a)  a proceeding that has been or is intended to be commenced to determine a question of law that is of significant interest to the public or to a substantial section of the public; or

(b)  a proceeding that—

(i)  raises issues of significant interest to the public or to a substantial section of the public; and

(ii)  has been or is intended to be commenced by an organisation that, by its governing enactment, constitution, or rules, is expressly or by necessary implication required to promote matters in the public interest.

[6]  In my view, the decision was correct. The substantive application is incoherent and the elaboration provided in the application for review does not add any clarity about the legal issues raised. Mr Easton has not satisfactorily demonstrated how the issues are of genuine public interest.

[7]For these reasons, I confirm the decision of the Registrar.

Thomas J