Friedrich Joachim Fehling v Douglas John Appleby

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 110/2015
[2015] NZSC 178

BETWEEN	FRIEDRICH JOACHIM FEHLING Applicant
AND	DOUGLAS JOHN APPLEBY Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person No appearance for Respondent
Judgment:	23 November 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Fehling seeks leave to appeal against:
(a)a Human Rights Review Tribunal decision;[1] and/or
(b)the decision of the High Court dismissing his appeal against that decision.[2]
[1]Fehling v Appleby [2014] NZHRRT 24.
[2]Fehling v Appleby [2014] NZHC 75 (Whata J).
Mr Fehling’s application to the High Court for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed by Nation J.[3] His application for special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed.[4]
[3]Fehling v Appleby [2015] NZHC 388.
[4]Fehling v Appleby [2015] NZCA 428 (Harrison, French and Cooper JJ).
No appeal to this Court lies from the Court of Appeal’s decision to decline leave.[5]
[5]Section 124(6) of the Human Rights Act 1993 and s 7(b) of the Supreme Court Act 2003.
While there may nevertheless be jurisdiction to grant leave for a direct appeal from the High Court decision, this would only be granted in extremely compelling circumstances.[6]
[6]Burke v The Western Bay of Plenty District Council [2005] NZSC 46, (2005) 18 PRNZ 560 at `[5]. See also the requirements of s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.
Mr Fehling has not provided any “extremely compelling” reasons why he should be allowed a direct appeal from the High Court. His submissions, instead, seek to re-argue the points of law and fact which have been dismissed by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
As Mr Appleby indicated he would abide the decision of the Court, there is no order for costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Friedrich Joachim Fehling sought leave to appeal against two decisions in a dispute with Douglas John Appleby. The first was a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, and the second was the decision of the High Court dismissing his appeal against the Tribunal's decision. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of New Zealand, with Justices William Young, Glazebrook, and O'Regan presiding. Mr Fehling appeared in person, while there was no appearance for Mr Appleby.

The legal issues before the Court were whether there were any compelling reasons to grant leave for a direct appeal from the High Court's decision, given that an appeal to the Court of Appeal had already been dismissed. The Court had to consider whether Mr Fehling had provided any "extremely compelling" reasons to warrant a direct appeal from the High Court. The Court also had to examine Mr Fehling's submissions, which sought to re-argue the points of law and fact that had already been dismissed by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

The Court found that Mr Fehling had not provided any "extremely compelling" reasons for a direct appeal from the High Court's decision. Instead, his submissions sought to re-argue points that had already been dismissed by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The Court held that it would only grant leave for a direct appeal in extremely compelling circumstances, and Mr Fehling had not met this threshold. The Court also noted that there was no jurisdiction to grant leave for an appeal from the Court of Appeal's decision to decline leave.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and there was no order for costs as Mr Appleby indicated he would abide by the Court's decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established