Mailley v Shaw

[2022] NZCA 638

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA332/2022
 [2022] NZCA 638

BETWEEN	MARTIN MAILLEY Applicant
AND	ANTONY SHAW First Respondent
AND	NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY Second Respondent

Counsel:	Applicant in person D A Cowan and JEG San Diego for First Respondent T P Mullins, DAC Bullock and T N Sussman for Second Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	19 December 2022 at 3.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF MILLER J
(Review of Registrar’s Decision)

The application for review of the Registrar’s decision is declined. 

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. This is an application for review of a Registrar’s decision to decline to waive security for costs.

2. The Registrar gave detailed reasons in a letter of 7 September 2022.  I agree with and adopt those reasons.

3. Nothing in Mr Mailley’s submissions on review persuades me that she was wrong.  In essence, this is a case in which the respondents should not be denied the protection of security for costs.  The Supreme Court has already confirmed that the argument on which Mr Mailley’s application to dispense with security costs is based does not give rise to an issue of general or public importance.[1]

   [1]Mailley v Shaw [2022] NZSC 93 at [5].

4. The application is declined.

Solicitors:
Ord Legal, Wellington for First Respondent
LeeSalmonLong, Auckland for Second Respondent