John Craig Ferrie Mabon v The Conference of the Methodist Church of New Zealand
[2000] NZCA 108
•19 June 2000
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND | CA 293/99 |
| BETWEEN | JOHN CRAIG FERRIE MABON |
| Appellant |
| AND | THE CONFERENCE OF THE METHODIST CHURCH OF NEW ZEALAND |
| Respondent |
| Hearing: | 19 June 2000 |
| Coram: | Henry J Thomas J Keith J |
| Appearances: | R P Harley and N M Barbich for Appellant D G Smith for Respondent |
| Judgment: | 19 June 2000 |
| JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THOMAS J |
The respondent has applied to strike out the appellant’s appeal from a decision by the High Court declining to review a decision of a Master in Chambers.
The respondent is the governing body of the New Zealand Methodist Church. The appellant is a former Methodist Minister. He was dismissed by the respondent. In the statement of claim, the appellant alleges both that the respondent unlawfully terminated a contract between the two parties and that the respondent unlawfully interfered with the instrument under which the appellant was appointed.
The Master held that the appellant’s present action was frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process. He was of the view that it was an attempt to re-litigate matters already determined by this Court in Mabon v Conference of the Methodist Church of New Zealand [1998] 3 NZLR 513. He ordered the proceedings struck out. Upon review, the High Court upheld the Master’s order. The appellant seeks to appeal against the decision of the High Court.
The respondent’s application is based on two grounds: first, that the appellant has not applied for, nor been granted, leave by the High Court under R 61C(6) of the High Court Rules 1985; and, secondly, that the appeal is out of time pursuant to s 6 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 1997.
A review of a Master’s decision is governed by R 61C. Rule 61C(6) provides that, except by leave of a Judge, no appeal lies from the review. The appellant did not apply for leave but argues that the review in this case is governed by R264. This argument is misconceived. It is well settled that R61C is the sole method by which decisions or orders of a Master in Chambers may be reviewed. Rule 264 only applies to Master’s decisions made in open Court. See Sutton v NZ Guardian Trust (1989) 2 PRNZ 111, and Talyancich v Index Developments Ltd [1992] 3 NZLR 28. Masters sitting in Chambers are exercising jurisdiction conferred under s 26J of the Judicature Act. Hence, R 61C is the appropriate rule and there is no jurisdiction for this Court to entertain the appeal.
This being the case, we do not need to determine the second issue relating to the appeal being out of time.
The respondent’s application is granted. The appellant’s proceeding is struck out. The appellant is ordered to pay costs of $1,500.00, together with disbursements, which, failing agreement, are to be settled by the Registrar.
Solicitors
Lloyd Dodson & Pringle, Dannevirke for Appellant
Cairns Slane, Auckland for Respondent
0
0
0