Mark Anthony Whittington v Solicitor-General - [2025] NZCA 175

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA820/2024

[2025] NZCA 175

BETWEEN MARK ANTHONY WHITTINGTON
Applicant
AND SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Respondent

Court:	Courtney and Mallon JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
I M G Clarke for Respondent
Judgment:	15 May 2025 at 3 pm
(On the papers)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A	The application is declined.
B	We make no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Mallon J)

Introduction

Mr Whittington applies for an extension of time to bring an appeal against a

decision of the High Court.[1] The respondent opposes the application.

[1] Whittington v Solicitor-General [2024] NZHC 1314.

Background

Mr Whittington’s mother passed away on 16 September 2019. The underlying

cause of death was recorded in the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death

(the Certificate) as being carcinoma of the bladder. The doctor who signed the

Certificate considered that the death did not need to be reported to the coroner.

On 15 April 2020 Mr Whittington requested that the Solicitor-General order a

coronial inquiry into the death of his mother and provided material in support of his

request, including a complaint he had made to the Health and Disability Commissioner

about his mother’s treatment.[2] On 6 November 2020 the Acting Deputy

Solicitor-General declined Mr Whittington’s request.[3] Mr Whittington then raised

further issues, believing that she had been misdiagnosed, that there was a conspiracy

relating to his mother’s death, and that “someone violently ended her life”.[4] The

Deputy Solicitor-General confirmed the decision not to order a coronial inquiry.

[2] At [4].

[3] At [5].

[4] At [6].

Mr Whittington applied for judicial review of the decisions of the Acting

Deputy Solicitor-General and the Deputy Solicitor-General. His application was heard

by Palmer J in the High Court. The Judge considered that the evidence before him did

not support the existence of an error in the decisions, nor was there a basis to support

pre-determination.[5] The Judge reviewed the material and concluded that it did not

support Mr Whittington’s belief that the death certificate incorrectly recorded the

cause of his mother’s death, nor that it was suspicious.[6] Rather, the medical notes

supported the conclusion that the underlying cause of her death was carcinoma of the

bladder and there was no good reason to doubt the accuracy of the medical notes.[7] The

Judge concluded that the decisions were open to the decision-makers, and were

reasonable, lawful and valid.[8] Mr Whittington’s application for judicial review was

therefore declined.[9]

[5] At [10].

[6] At [12].

[7] At [12].

[8] At [14].

[9] At [15].

Mr Whittington then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the

High Court decision. He raised essentially the same grounds as those raised in the

High Court as well as some process issues. The Supreme Court held that nothing

raised by Mr Whittington in his appeal suggested that the High Court decision was

wrong or that the process in the High Court was unfair and there was therefore…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Mark Anthony Whittington v Solicitor-General

Details

AGLC: Mark Anthony Whittington v Solicitor-General [2025] NZCA 175
Case: [2025] NZCA 175
Decision Date: 15 May 2025 at 3 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mark Anthony Whittington sought an extension of time to appeal a High Court decision that declined his application for a coronial inquiry into his mother’s death. The respondent, the Solicitor-General, opposed the application. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether extending the time limit for bringing the appeal was in the interests of justice, considering factors such as the length of the delay, reasons for the delay, conduct of the parties, potential prejudice to the respondent, and the significance of the proposed appeal. The Court had to assess whether the proposed appeal had any prospect of success and whether it was in the interests of justice to grant the extension.

The Court of Appeal found that Mr Whittington's delay in filing his application for an extension of time was substantial, nearly six months beyond the required period. Although Mr Whittington claimed personal health issues as a reason for the delay, he did not provide further explanation. The Court noted that Mr Whittington had been self-represented and had shown significant personal investment in the subject matter. Despite the respondent’s submissions on potential prejudice and the cost of responding to the application, the Court concluded that the proposed appeal was hopeless. The Supreme Court had already determined that there was no risk of a miscarriage of justice and Mr Whittington's arguments in support of the extension application did not alter this view. The Court reviewed the transcript of the hearing before the High Court and found that Mr Whittington had been given a full opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Court held that granting an extension of time was not in the interests of justice.

The Court declined Mr Whittington's application for an extension of time to appeal the High Court decision. The Court made no order as to costs despite the significant costs incurred by the respondent in responding to Mr Whittington’s proceedings and applications.

Orders