Neville Raymond Watkin v Santha Elise Jenkin

[2001] NZCA 202

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA114/01

BETWEEN	NEVILLE RAYMOND WATKIN
Appellant

AND	SANTHA ELISE JENKIN
Respondent

Hearing:	16 July 2001
Coram:	Keith J Blanchard J McGrath J
Appearances:	Appellant in person Respondent in person
Judgment:	16 July 2001

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1. Mr Watkin appealed unsuccessfully to the High Court from Family Court decision concerning matrimonial property.  He then purported to appeal to this Court but following correspondence with the Registry also applied to this Court for leave to appeal.

2. Under s39(2) of the Matrimonial Property Act 1976 the provisions of the Judicature Act 1908 relating to appeals to this Court against a decision of the High Court apply to any order or decision of that Court under the Act.  The relevant provision of the Judicature Act is s67 under which leave is required for a second appeal.  The leave is to be given by the High Court or, where that Court refuses leave, by this Court.

3. No application for leave has been made to the High Court and this Court accordingly has no jurisdiction to grant leave.  The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

4. In the course of oral argument members of the Court pointed to the policy adopted by Parliament in legislative provisions such as that in the Judicature Act which can be traced back to the beginning of this Court in 1862.  Second appeals would be rare.  As the Courts have said over a very long period the proposed question must be capable of serious argument in a case involving some interest, public or private, of sufficient importance to outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal : eg Rutherford v Waite [1923] GLR 34, Walter v Hider [1999] 1 NZLR 412 and S v S [1999] 3 NZLR 513, 534-535. Members of the Court also pointed to the real difficulties that Mr Watkin would have on the facts of the case in establishing a matter of sufficient importance to justify the grant of leave.