Malcolm Rabson v Registrar Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 44/2015
[2015] NZSC 99

BETWEEN

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON
Applicant

AND

REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT
First Respondent

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
Second Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person H M Carrad for First and Second Respondents
Judgment:	13 July 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

BThe applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

This is an application for leave to appeal directly to this Court against a decision of Collins J.[1] In that decision, Collins J ordered that the applicant’s application for judicial review of a decision of the first respondent be struck out on the basis that it disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action.
[1]Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2015] NZHC 709.
The application falls to be determined under s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003: leave must not be given unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify a direct appeal to this Court. This Court made it clear in a very similar case, Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court, that if this Court was ultimately required to determine the issue raised in that case (being the same issue as is raised in this case), it would be assisted by the view of the Court of Appeal.[2] The s 14 test was not satisfied in that case and is not satisfied in this case either.
[2]Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2014] NZSC 100 at [2].
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
We award costs of $2,500 to the second respondent.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application by Malcolm Edward Rabson against the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Justice. Rabson sought leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court against a decision by Collins J that his application for judicial review of a decision made by the Registrar be struck out, as it did not disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action. The application for leave to appeal was governed by section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003, which stipulates that leave must not be granted unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. This condition was not met, as previously determined in a similar case, Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court, where it was held that the Supreme Court would be assisted by the Court of Appeal’s view on the matter. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether there were exceptional circumstances present that would warrant allowing a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, bypassing the usual appellate route through the Court of Appeal. The Court examined the criteria outlined in section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003, which require a demonstration of exceptional circumstances. The Court referenced its earlier decision in Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court, where it was concluded that the same issue—the circumstances under which direct appeal to the Supreme Court is permissible—warranted the Court of Appeal's input. This reasoning applied equally to Rabson’s case, leading to the conclusion that exceptional circumstances were not present. Consequently, the Court found no basis to grant leave for a direct appeal.

The Court found that the exceptional circumstances necessary to allow a direct appeal to the Supreme Court were not present in this case. The criteria for such an appeal are stringent, and the Court underscored the importance of following the usual appellate route through the Court of Appeal, as it did in Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court. The Court dismissed Rabson’s application for leave to appeal, reinforcing the principle that direct appeals to the Supreme Court are rare and only permissible in truly exceptional circumstances. The Court also ordered Rabson to pay costs of $2,500 to the Ministry of Justice.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established