M v Minister of Immigration

Case [2011] NZSC 154

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPLICANT PROHIBITED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 118/2011
[2011] NZSC 154

BETWEEN  M
Applicant

AND  MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION
Respondent

Court:             Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ

Counsel:         Applicant in Person
M G Coleman and R J Hoare for Respondent

Judgment:      13 December 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the Respondent

REASONS

  1. The applicant has appealed to the Court of Appeal against a decision of the High Court striking out his application for judicial review.[1]  A Court of Appeal Judge has declined his application for review of the decision of the Registrar of that Court to fix security for costs for that appeal at $2,780.[2]  He now seeks leave to appeal directly to this Court against the High Court judgment (and against an earlier High Court decision striking out a different judicial review application)[3] and leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal Judge.

    [1]M v Minister of Immigration HC Auckland CIV-2011-404-2913, 5 September 2011 per Courtney J.

    [2]      M(CA 587/2011)v Minister of Immigration [2011] NZCA 565.

    [3]      M v Minister of Immigration HC Auckland CIV-2011-404-1517, 10 May 2011 per Peters J.

  2. This Court cannot hear the proposed direct appeals.  Section 8(c) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 provides:

    8     Appeals against decisions of High Court in civil proceedings

    The Supreme Court can hear and determine an appeal by a party to a civil proceeding in the High Court against any decision made in the proceeding, unless—

    ...

    (c)     the decision was made on an interlocutory application.

  3. A decision to strike out a proceeding is a decision made on an interlocutory application: see definition of interlocutory order as including “an order striking out the whole or part of a proceeding” in r 1.3 of the High Court Rules.

  4. The Court of Appeal judgment concerning security for costs simply follows rulings made on similar applications by the applicant.  The proposed appeal in relation to it must fail for the reason given in this Court’s judgment declining leave to appeal against those decisions,[4] namely that the Judge’s decision was an entirely orthodox exercise of his discretion.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington


Details
AGLC
M v Minister of Immigration [2011] NZSC 154
Case
[2011] NZSC 154
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved M, who sought to appeal decisions made by the Minister of Immigration. The core dispute centred on the legality and procedural fairness of decisions regarding M's refugee status and associated immigration matters. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining the validity of these appeals.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the Supreme Court Act 2003, specifically section 8(c), which governs the circumstances under which the Supreme Court can hear appeals from the High Court. The court needed to ascertain whether the decision to strike out M's proceeding was an interlocutory application, as this would preclude the Supreme Court from hearing the appeal. Additionally, the court had to examine the propriety of the decisions concerning security for costs, as these were pivotal in the broader context of M's case.

In its reasoning, the court closely examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law to conclude that the decision to strike out M's proceeding was indeed made on an interlocutory application. This interpretation aligned with the definition of interlocutory orders in the High Court Rules. Consequently, the court determined that M's appeal against this decision was not permissible under section 8(c) of the Supreme Court Act 2003. The court also found that the decision concerning security for costs was a straightforward exercise of judicial discretion, aligning with prior rulings on similar applications. Therefore, the appeal in this respect was also dismissed.

The court's final orders were that the proposed direct appeals were not to be heard by the Supreme Court. The decision to strike out the proceeding and the associated security for costs ruling were upheld, and the appeals against these decisions were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

This Court cannot hear the proposed direct appeals. Section 8(c) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 provides:8 Appeals against decisions of High Court in civil proceedingsThe Supreme Court can hear and determine an appeal by a party to a civil proceeding in the High Court against any decision made in the proceeding, unless—...(c) the decision was made on an interlocutory application. A decision to strike out a proceeding is a decision made on an interlocutory application: see definition of interlocutory order as including “an order striking out the whole or part of a proceeding” in r 1.3 of the High Court Rules. The Court of Appeal judgment concerning security for costs simply follows rulings made on similar applications by the applicant. The proposed appeal in relation to it must fail for the reason given in this Court’s judgment declining leave to appeal against those decisions,[4] namely that the Judge’s decision was an entirely orthodox exercise of his discretion.[4] M v Refugee Status Appeals Authority [2011] NZSC 143.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.