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

IN THE SUPREME COURTOF NEW ZEALAND

SC 12/2015
[2015] NZSC 58

BETWEEN	MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON Applicant
AND	REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT First Respondent
AND	MINISTRY OF JUSTICE Second Respondent

SC 20/2015
AND BETWEEN	MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON Applicant
AND	REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT First Respondent
AND	MINISTRY OF JUSTICE Second Respondent

:
Court:	Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person K Laurenson for the Respondents
Judgment:	12 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondents.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

In SC 12/2015 Mr Rabson seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of French J of 30 January 2015.[1] In that judgment, French J reviewed a decision of the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal and also made a number of procedural orders.
[1]Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2015] NZCA 5.
In SC 20/2015 Mr Rabson seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 13 March 2015.[2] This judgment dismissed an application for the review of French J’s judgment of 30 January 2015. The Court held that French J had no disqualifying conflict and that she had applied the law correctly. In addition the procedural orders she made were in Mr Rabson’s favour.
[2]Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2015] NZCA 68 (Randerson, White and Miller JJ).
Mr Rabson’s underlying concern appears to be with an earlier judgment of French J.[3] That earlier judgment has been the subject of an unsuccessful application for leave to this Court.[4]
[3]Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2014] NZCA 481 (French J).
[4]Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2014] NZSC 176.
Mr Rabson also, in relation to French J’s 30 January 2015 decision and the review by the Court of Appeal of that decision, argues that the incorrect procedure was followed in terms of s 61A of the Judicature Act 1908, that the procedural orders should not have been made and that French J had a disqualifying conflict because of her earlier rulings in the matter.
To the extent that the application relates to jurisdictional issues, these, have been settled by this Court in Reekie v Attorney-General.[5] No issue of public or general importance therefore arises. To the extent the application relates to French J’s procedural orders, these were in Mr Rabson’s favour. Involvement at another stage of a matter does not amount to disqualifying conduct. Therefore the applications do not meet the test for leave to appeal in s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.

Result

[5]Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63.

Both applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondents.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Malcolm Edward Rabson has sought leave to appeal against two judgments of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The first appeal, SC 12/2015, concerns a judgment by French J of 30 January 2015, which reviewed a decision of the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal and made procedural orders. The second appeal, SC 20/2015, pertains to a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 13 March 2015 that dismissed an application for review of French J’s earlier judgment. Rabson argues that French J had a disqualifying conflict, procedural orders were improperly made, and the wrong procedure was followed under section 61A of the Judicature Act 1908.

The court was required to determine whether the applications for leave to appeal met the criteria under section 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003, which requires that an appeal be of public or general importance. The court also had to assess whether French J’s earlier rulings created a disqualifying conflict and whether procedural orders were appropriately made. In the context of jurisdictional matters, the court referred to the precedent set in Reekie v Attorney-General, which established that no issue of public or general importance arose in this case. The court further considered whether French J's involvement in another stage of the matter amounted to disqualifying conduct, concluding that it did not.

The court dismissed both applications for leave to appeal. It found that the issues raised did not meet the test for leave to appeal as they did not involve questions of public or general importance. The procedural orders made by French J were in Rabson's favour, and the court held that involvement at another stage of the matter did not constitute disqualifying conduct. As a result, the applications were unsuccessful, and costs of $2,500 were awarded to the respondents.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established