Friedrich Joachim Fehling v West Coast District Health Board

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 104/2016
[2016] NZSC 155

BETWEEN	FRIEDRICH JOACHIM FEHLING Applicant
AND	WEST COAST DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD Respondent

Court:	Arnold, OʼRegan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in Person P N White for Respondent
Judgment:	24 November 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $1,500.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant was dissatisfied with a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal.[1] He wished to appeal against that decision and filed documents in the High Court in pursuit of that objective. The documents were returned to him by the High Court after Mander J directed the registry not to accept them for filing. This is because they contained scandalous and offensive material.
[1]Fehling v Ministry of Health [2016] NZHRRT 29.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the decision not to accept his documents for filing.
We do not consider the Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a decision not to accept documents for filing, because their non‑acceptance meant there was no “proceeding” in the High Court.[2] Mander J’s direction that the documents not be accepted for filing did not prevent the applicant from appealing to the High Court, but required him to do so in a manner that did not abuse the Court’s process. The correct response to this by the applicant was to file appeal documents in the High Court that omitted the scandalous and offensive material, not to apply for leave to appeal to this Court.
[2]Supreme Court Act 2003, s 8.
Even if this Court had jurisdiction to consider the application, it is clear that there is no proper basis for granting leave in this case. Under s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003, the Court may grant leave against the decision of a court other than the Court of Appeal only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying taking the appeal directly to this Court. That requirement applies in addition to the requirements for leave under s 13, which refers to appeals involving “a matter of general or public importance”, or where a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
The decision of Mander J to direct the non‑acceptance of the scandalous material was a decision to protect the processes of the Court from being abused. No matter of public importance arises and there are certainly not exceptional circumstances.
We dismiss the application for leave to appeal.
The respondent was required to file a brief submission for which it will have no doubt incurred some cost. In the circumstances, we award costs to the respondent of $1,500.
The material filed in this Court contained scandalous and offensive statements. The applicant is directed to desist from filing such material in this Court. Material of this kind in the future will not be accepted for filing and will be returned to the applicant.

Solicitors:
West Coast District Health Board, Christchurch for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand recently dealt with an application for leave to appeal by Friedrich Joachim Fehling against a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal. The matter was heard by Arnold, O'Regan, and Ellen France JJ, with the respondent represented by P N White. The primary issue before the Court was whether it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the decision of Mander J, who had refused to accept Fehling's documents for filing due to their scandalous and offensive content. The applicant argued that the refusal to accept the documents for filing was a significant decision that warranted an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Court first considered whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The justices found that the refusal to accept the documents for filing did not constitute a "proceeding" in the High Court, thereby limiting the Court's jurisdiction. The Court further reasoned that even if it had jurisdiction, the application did not meet the exceptional circumstances required under s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 to grant leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The decision of Mander J was seen as a necessary measure to protect the integrity of the Court's processes, rather than a matter of public importance or a potential miscarriage of justice.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, noting that the applicant should have filed an appeal in the High Court with the offensive material omitted. The Court awarded the respondent costs of $1,500 and directed Fehling to refrain from filing any further scandalous material in the Court. Any such material would be returned to the applicant without being accepted for filing.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established