John Morgan McKenzie v Legal Services v Commissioner

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 142/2013
[2014] NZSC 49

BETWEEN	JOHN MORGAN MACKENZIE Applicant
AND	LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ and William Young J
Counsel:	Applicant in person R J Gordon for Respondent
Judgment:	2 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of the judgment of 20 March 2014 is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

In a judgment delivered on 20 March 2014, this Court refused the applicant leave to appeal against a judgment of Dobson J dismissing an appeal from the Legal Aid Tribunal.[1] He had been refused legal aid for proceedings against the Crown Health Financing Agency for reasons which included limitation difficulties which the applicant faces in relation to those proceedings.
[1]MacKenzie v Legal Services Commissioner [2014] NZSC 23.
The applicant has the fixed idea that time did not begin to run for limitation purposes until 24 November 2006, which is the date on which he received a letter from the Crown Health Financing Agency denying liability. If this is the case, then his proceedings were issued in time. He considers that he could not have filed proceedings in the High Court until liability was denied. This, however, is not in accordance with the way the Limitation Act 1950 operated. The applicant also complains that the leave judgment does not determine the limitation question. It was, however, not the function of the leave judgment to do so. Leave judgments must be addressed to the criteria provided in the Supreme Court Act 2003 as to when leave to appeal should be granted. The applicant plainly does not accept the approach taken by the Court as to the extent of its jurisdiction but as to this, there is nothing which we can usefully add to what has already been said in earlier judgments.
Nothing in the material submitted provides an adequate basis for the recall of the earlier judgment.

Solicitors:
Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of John Morgan McKenzie against the Legal Services Commissioner was heard before Elias CJ and William Young J. The applicant, McKenzie, sought to appeal a decision by the Legal Services Commissioner, who had dismissed an appeal from the Legal Aid Tribunal. The appeal centred on McKenzie's refusal of legal aid for proceedings against the Crown Health Financing Agency, which was partly due to limitation difficulties he faced. McKenzie believed that the limitation period did not start until a specific date when he received a denial of liability from the Crown Health Financing Agency, arguing that his proceedings were timely. However, the court found that this interpretation was not in line with the Limitation Act 1950.

The central legal issue was whether the limitation period for McKenzie's proceedings began on the date he received the denial of liability or on an earlier date. The court examined the statutory framework provided by the Limitation Act 1950 and concluded that McKenzie's interpretation was incorrect. The court emphasised that the limitation period was governed by statutory provisions and not by the applicant's beliefs about when liability was denied. Furthermore, the court noted that the function of the leave judgment was to address the criteria for granting leave to appeal under the Supreme Court Act 2003, not to determine the limitation issue. McKenzie's dissatisfaction with the court's jurisdictional approach was noted, but the court found no merit in his arguments.

The Supreme Court dismissed McKenzie's application for recall of the earlier judgment, affirming the decision not to grant leave to appeal. The court found that the material submitted did not provide a sufficient basis to recall the previous judgment. The applicant's submissions did not successfully challenge the court's interpretation of the Limitation Act 1950 or the criteria for granting leave to appeal. As a result, the application was dismissed, and the original judgment stood.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established