Legal Research
Cases
G v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development

G v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development

Case [2010] NZSC 141 17 November 2010

Jurisdiction

Security for Costs

Compliance with Directions

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 90/2010
[2010] NZSC 141
BETWEENG

Applicant

ANDCHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

First Respondent
ANDBARNARDOS NEW ZEALAND

Second Respondent
ANDLOUISE SMITH

Third Respondent
ANDTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Fourth Respondent
ANDDR PRAMILA FERNANDEZ

Fifth Respondent

Court:Elias CJ, Tipping and McGrath JJ
Counsel:E Orlov for Applicant

A Williams for First and Fourth Respondents
A Cooke for Second Respondent
H Janes for Third Respondent
A H Waalkens QC and A L Credin for Fifth Respondent

Judgment:17 November 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
[1]        The applicant has appealed to the Court of Appeal against a judgment of the High Court[1] striking out her statement of claim seeking custody orders in this proceeding, which is part of a long running dispute between the applicant and the first and second respondents. The Registrar of the Court of Appeal refused an application to dispense with security for costs on the appeal payable by the applicant. On review of that decision Glazebrook J decided that security should be given by the applicant in a reduced sum of $5,000.[2] The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against the Judge’s refusal to waive security for costs.
[1]RIG v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development HC Auckland CIV 2008-404-003461, 27 July 2009.
[2]RIG v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2010] NZCA 370.
[2]        The underlying appeal relates to the failure of the applicant to comply with directions as to pleading including, eventually, an order that unless she filed an amended statement of claim by a specified date the applicant’s proceeding would be struck out.
[3]        Glazebrook J’s decision on security for costs was made on the application of settled criteria. It recognised the applicant’s limited means. The Judge’s approach was orthodox and gives rise to no issues of principle. We are also satisfied that the underlying appeal is such that the respondents to it should have some protection by way of security for costs.
[4]        Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. There will be no order for costs.
Solicitors:
Botany Law, Manukau for Applicant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for First and Fourth Respondents
Kensington Swan, Auckland for Second Respondent
Keegan Alexander, Auckland for Third Respondent
Fisher Lamberg, Auckland for Fifth Respondent

Details

AGLC: G v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2010] NZSC 141
Case: [2010] NZSC 141
Decision Date: 17 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was presented with an appeal by G against the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development, Barnardos New Zealand, Louise Smith, the Attorney-General, and Dr Pramila Fernandez. The central issue was the refusal of Glazebrook J to waive security for costs required from G for her appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision to strike out her custody claims. These claims stemmed from a protracted legal dispute involving G, the Ministry of Social Development, and Barnardos New Zealand. G's initial application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision was dismissed, leading to her seeking leave to appeal against Glazebrook J's decision regarding security for costs.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether Glazebrook J's decision to require G to provide security for costs was appropriate, given her limited financial means and the nature of the underlying appeal. The Court examined whether the refusal to waive security for costs was an abuse of discretion and whether it was necessary to protect the respondents given the nature of the appeal. The Court also needed to determine if the appeal itself had sufficient merit to warrant consideration without the security for costs.

The Supreme Court upheld Glazebrook J's decision, finding that the Judge's approach was orthodox and that the criteria for requiring security for costs were applied correctly. The Court recognised G's limited means but also emphasised the need for the respondents to be protected against potential costs if the appeal were to proceed. The Court concluded that the underlying appeal did not present any issues of principle that would warrant a waiver of security for costs. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal against Glazebrook J's decision was dismissed, and no order for costs was made.

Orders