Malcolm John Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice

IN THE SUPREME COURTOF NEW ZEALAND

SC 21/2015
[2015] NZSC 55

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
Judgment:	8 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Rabson seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of Mallon J in the High Court where she struck out the applicant’s judicial review proceedings against the Registrar of this Court.[1]
[1]Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2015] NZHC 403.
Under s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003, the Supreme Court can give leave to appeal directly to it against a decision of the High Court only in exceptional circumstances.
As was recognised by this Court in Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court, in almost identical circumstances, “[i]f this Court is ultimately required to determine the procedural issue – as to whether judicial review is available in the High Court in respect of the Registrar’s decisions – it will be much assisted by the views of the Court of Appeal”.[2]
[2]Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2014] NZSC 100 at [2].
Nothing raised by the applicant meets the test under s 14. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed accordingly.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of Malcolm John Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice was presented. Rabson sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment which dismissed his judicial review proceedings against the Registrar of the Supreme Court. Rabson's appeal to the Supreme Court was based on the availability of judicial review in the High Court for decisions made by the Registrar. The legal question before the court was whether the circumstances of the case were exceptional enough to warrant leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court under section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.

The court examined the criteria for granting leave to appeal under section 14, noting that such leave is granted only in exceptional circumstances. The court referenced a previous case, Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court, which highlighted the importance of the Court of Appeal's views on the procedural issue of judicial review availability. The court found that Rabson's arguments did not meet the stringent test for exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Supreme Court concluded that Rabson had not demonstrated that the case met the exceptional criteria for direct appeal under section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, maintaining that the Court of Appeal should have the opportunity to first consider the procedural issue of judicial review in respect of the Registrar's decisions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established