Neil Martin Clarke v Corey Daniel Watts

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 83/2010
[2010] NZSC 123
BETWEENNEIL MARTIN CLARKE

Applicant

ANDCOREY DANIEL WATTS

Respondent

Court:Blanchard, Tipping and William Young JJ
Counsel:Applicant in person

Judgment:7 October 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
[1]        The applicant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the High Court was struck out by the Court of Appeal because he failed to pay security for costs. He has applied for leave to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal’s strike-out order. The more detailed circumstances lying behind that order are set out in the decision under appeal and an earlier decision of Arnold J refusing to review a decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal which declined Mr Clarke’s application to dispense with security for costs and fixed security at $4740.
[2]        Despite having been granted an extension of time, Mr Clarke has not filed any submissions in support of the application for leave beyond those set out in the application itself. Having considered those we are satisfied that the application for leave is without merit. None of the grounds for the grant of leave set out in s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 are made out. No matter of general or public importance or commercial significance is involved; nor is there any basis for concern that a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred or may occur unless the appeal is heard. The application for leave must accordingly be dismissed.
[3]        We record that Mr Clarke belatedly sought a copy of the Court of Appeal’s file from this Court. He claimed the file was necessary for him to make submissions in support of his application for leave. Nothing on the Court of Appeal’s file could possibly assist Mr Clarke in formulating any persuasive grounds because his application is quite hopeless when consideration is given to the grounds on which this Court is authorised to grant leave to appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Neil Martin Clarke v Corey Daniel Watts, the Supreme Court of New Zealand was called upon to determine whether the applicant, Neil Martin Clarke, should be granted leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision to strike out his appeal. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed Clarke's appeal from a High Court decision due to his failure to pay security for costs. Clarke's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was made directly to that court, as he was unable to satisfy the Court of Appeal's order to provide security for costs. The Supreme Court was tasked with examining whether the appeal met the criteria for granting leave as stipulated in section 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether Clarke's application for leave to appeal satisfied any of the grounds for leave as outlined in section 13 of the Act. These grounds include matters of general or public importance, commercial significance, or where there is a risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice. The Court needed to determine if Clarke's case met any of these criteria to warrant granting leave to appeal. Additionally, the Court considered whether Clarke's belated attempt to obtain a copy of the Court of Appeal's file could provide any grounds for a persuasive argument in support of his application.

In dismissing Clarke's application for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court found that none of the statutory grounds for leave were met. The Court was satisfied that Clarke's application lacked merit and did not present any matter of general or public importance, commercial significance, or risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice. The Court also noted that Clarke's late request for the Court of Appeal's file could not assist in formulating persuasive grounds for the appeal, as his application was fundamentally flawed. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, affirming the Court of Appeal's decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established