Malcolm Edward Rabson v Registrar of Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 104/2014
[2014] NZSC 191

BETWEEN

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON
Applicant

AND

REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT
First Respondent

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
Second Respondent

Court:	William Young, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person K Laurenson for Respondents
Judgment:	23 December 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application to recall the judgment of 2 December 2014 and the second application for leave to appeal against the judgment of French J are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant has applied for the recall of the judgment of 2 December 2014[1] dismissing his application for leave to appeal against a judgment French J delivered on 2 October 2014.[2] There is nothing in the material submitted which warrants a recall and the application is accordingly dismissed.
[1]Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2014] NZSC 175.
[2]Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2014] NZCA 481.
On 8 December 2014, the applicant filed a second application for leave to appeal against the same judgment of French J. The basis of the proposed appeal rests on the assumption that French J made an order requiring him to pay security for costs and that her order (which directed that his appeal be accepted for filing) operated retrospectively. The applicant also complains that the Court of Appeal has not addressed his applications for a stay of the “order” and review of French J’s judgment under s 61A(2) of the Judicature Act 1908.
Leaving aside the fact that this is a second application, there is nothing of substance in it.
(a)In her judgment, the Judge said that she was extending time to pay security for costs to ensure that the applicant was not disadvantaged by the delay.[3] She then said, “Mr Rabson must pay security for costs or apply to the Registrar for dispensation of security within 20 working days …”.[4] In the context, this was not an order that the applicant pay security for costs but rather a description of the practical effect of the extension of time she granted.
(b)There being no order, there was nothing to stay and there is, in this respect, nothing to challenge on appeal.
(c)There is no jurisdiction under s 61A(2) to review the order of the Judge.[5]
[3]At [9].
[4]At [9].
[5]See Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63, [2014] 1 NZLR 737 at [24]–[26].
The second application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Malcolm Edward Rabson applied to the Supreme Court of New Zealand for the recall of a judgment dismissing his application for leave to appeal. The application was dismissed as no grounds were presented to warrant a recall. Rabson also filed a second application for leave to appeal, which was similarly dismissed. This second application was based on the assumption that French J had made an order requiring Rabson to pay security for costs, which was deemed to operate retrospectively. The applicant also argued that the Court of Appeal had not addressed his applications for a stay of the "order" and a review of French J’s judgment. The court found that French J’s judgment did not impose an order to pay security for costs, and thus, there was nothing to stay or challenge on appeal. Additionally, the court held that there was no jurisdiction under section 61A(2) of the Judicature Act 1908 to review the order of the judge.

The legal issues in this case were whether the judgment could be recalled and whether the second application for leave to appeal had merit. The court dismissed both applications, finding that the applicant had not provided sufficient grounds for recall or leave to appeal. The court further clarified that French J’s judgment did not impose an order for security for costs, and therefore, there was no basis for a stay or appeal. The court also held that there was no jurisdiction to review the order under section 61A(2) of the Judicature Act 1908. This case highlights the importance of ensuring that all applications for recall and leave to appeal are substantiated with valid legal grounds.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established