Lister v The (Deputy) Registrar High Court of New Zealand Auckland Registry

[2015] NZHC 1246

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-1204 [2015] NZHC 1246

IN THE MATTER

of an application for review

UNDER

The Judicature Act 1908 schedule 2
High Court Rules s 2.11(1)(b)

BETWEEN

DEBRA ANNE GRETA LISTER Applicant

AND

THE (DEPUTY) REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	5 June 2015

JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

Copy to:

The applicant

LISTER v THE (DEPUTY) REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY [2015] NZHC 1246 [5 June 2015]

[1]      Ms Lister seeks a review of the Registrar's decision to decline to accept her recent application for judicial review for filing.  Although her statement of claim is not before me (it having been returned to her by the Registrar) my understanding is that, in it, she sought judicial review of a decision of Associate Judge Christiansen on 19 August 2014 and of a decision of Justice Asher dated 20 October 2014 in

which he declined her application for a review of Judge Christiansen's decision.1

[2]      Ms Lister says, and I accept, that her proposed application for judicial review is different, and quite separate from, her original application for review of the Associate Judge's decision.  The former application was sought to be brought under the Judicature Amendment Act 1972.  The latter was brought pursuant to s 26P of the Judicature Act 1908.

[3]      That distinction does not, however, assist Ms Lister.  The short point is that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain judicial review proceedings in relation to decisions made by its own Judges and Associate Judges.  The decisions in Bulmer v Attorney-General and Hawkins v Attorney-General make that clear.2    To similar effect is the decision of the  House of Lords in Re Racal Communications Ltd.3   No other Court has jurisdiction either.

[4]      Accordingly the only course open to Ms Lister is to apply for leave to appeal Asher J's  decision,  which  she has  done.    Given  that Asher J  has  declined  that application it might be open to her yet to apply to the Court of Appeal for leave, although I suspect that she is considerably out of time to do that.   Nor is  this judgment  to  be  taken  as  suggesting  that  such  an  application  would  either  be

appropriate or warranted.

1      Lister v Pegg Ayton Gordon Trustee Ltd [2014] NZHC 1956; Lister v Pegg Ayton Gordon

Trustee Ltd [2014] NZHC 2553.

2      Bulmer v Attorney-General (1998) 12 PRNZ 316 (CA); and Hawkins v Attorney-General (1999)

14 PRNZ 5.

3      Re Racal Communications Ltd [1981] AC 374, [1980] 2 ALL ER 634 (HL).

[5]      For the above reasons, the Registrar was plainly right to reject Ms Lister’s

claim for filing.  Her application for review of that decision is dismissed accordingly.

Rebecca Ellis J