Erwood v Minchin

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 21/2025
[2025] NZSC 21

BETWEEN	ROBERT ERWOOD Applicant
AND	GRAEME EDWARD MINCHIN First Respondent
ANTHONY DAVID BANBROOK Second Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person First Respondent in person
Judgment:	27 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for the appointment of an amicus curiae is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Erwood applies for leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on 18 December 2024.[1]
[1]Erwood v Glasgow Harley [2024] NZCA 679 (Mallon, Cooke and Collins JJ). This application was initially refused by the Registrar but an application for review of the Registrar’s decision was granted: Re Erwood [2025] NZSC 11 (Glazebrook J).
Mr Erwood applies for the appointment of Ms Levy as amicus curiae.
We note that Mr Mijatov was counsel to assist in the Court of Appeal and we understand he is available for appointment in this Court.
We do not consider there is a necessity for the appointment of amicus curiae or counsel to assist at this stage.
Mr Erwood may renew his application should leave be granted.
The Registrar is to deal with any timetabling issues with regard to submissions that may arise.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application from Mr. Robert Erwood for leave to appeal a decision made by the Court of Appeal on 18 December 2024. The case, Erwood v Glasgow Harley, was initially dismissed by the Registrar but later reviewed by Glazebrook J, who granted an application for review, leading to this appeal. Mr. Erwood also sought the appointment of Ms. Levy as an amicus curiae, though the court noted that Mr. Mijatov, counsel from the Court of Appeal, was available for such a role. The court decided against the necessity of appointing an amicus curiae or counsel to assist at this stage, suggesting that Mr. Erwood could reapply if leave to appeal was granted.

The legal issues presented in the application involved the necessity of appointing an amicus curiae and whether the initial decision by the Registrar to refuse leave to appeal should be reviewed. The court examined the requirements for such appointments and the conditions under which leave to appeal could be granted. The core of the dispute was whether the appeal had merit and if the amicus curiae would provide significant value to the proceedings.

In dismissing the application for the appointment of an amicus curiae, the court reasoned that there was no immediate necessity for such an appointment. The court highlighted that Mr. Erwood could renew his application if leave to appeal was granted. The court also noted the availability of Mr. Mijatov to assist, but ultimately decided against his appointment at this stage. The Registrar was instructed to manage any issues related to the timing of submissions.

The court's final order was to dismiss the application for the appointment of an amicus curiae. Mr. Erwood was informed that he could reapply if leave to appeal was granted, and the Registrar was directed to handle any issues concerning the timing of future submissions. The decision underscored the court's stance that the current circumstances did not necessitate the appointment of an amicus curiae or counsel to assist.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established