Malcolm John Rabson and Richard John Creser v Transparency International

[2015] NZSC 56

IN THE SUPREME COURTOF NEW ZEALAND

SC 22/2015
[2015] NZSC 56

BETWEEN	MALCOM EDWARD RABSON AND RICHARD JOHN CRESER Applicants
AND	TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL (NEW ZEALAND) INCORPORATED Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicants in person D R Kalderimis and K E Yesberg for the Respondent
Judgment:	8 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. The applicants seek leave to appeal against a High Court judgment of Mallon J dated 3 March 2015.[1]  In that judgment, Mallon J struck out the applicants’ statement of claim seeking judicial review of various decisions of Transparency International (New Zealand) Inc.

   [1]Rabson v Transparency International (New Zealand) Inc [2015] NZHC 334.

2. Under s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003, the Supreme Court must not give leave to appeal directly to it against a decision made in a court other than the Court of Appeal unless (in addition to being satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to hear and determine the proposed appeal) it is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances justifying taking the proposed appeal directly to this Court.

3. The applicants argue that the underlying appeal is of significant public importance and that the exceptional circumstances for a direct appeal are reinforced by “an oppressive security for costs regime” which will prevent the applicants appealing against the judgment to the New Zealand Court of Appeal. 

4. The fact an appeal may be of public importance is not an exceptional circumstance justifying a direct appeal to this Court.[2]  As to security for costs, as this Court stated in Siemer v Brown, it “is not appropriate to allow a leapfrog appeal to this Court to circumvent the application of the rules applying to appeals to the Court of Appeal, in particular, the requirement to pay security for costs”.[3]  

   [2]In any event, the respondent submits the underlying allegations that are the subject of the proceedings are trivial, moot and lack seriousness. 

   [3]Siemer v Brown [2015] NZSC 41 at [6].

5. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed and costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondent.

Solicitors:
Chapman Tripp, Wellington for Respondent