Ngati Tahinga and Ngati Karewa v The Attorney-General of New Zealand

[2002] NZCA 173

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA73/02

BETWEEN	NGATI TAHINGA AND NGATI KAREWA TRUST AND N N CLARK AND OTHERS AS TRUSTEES
Appellants

AND	THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND
First Respondent

AND	I H MCKINNON
Second Respondent

Counsel:	J E Dorbu for Applicant
Judgment:	22 July 2002

JUDGMENT OF TIPPING J

1. Mr Clark, by his counsel, has asked that a Judge review the Registrar’s decision declining to waive the fee payable on an application for conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the judgment of this Court delivered on 27 June 2002.  That judgment refused an application for special leave to appeal out of time from an interim judgment delivered by Randerson J in the High Court on 5 November 2001.  This Court dismissed that application on the basis that the proposed appeal was hopeless, and that it would therefore be contrary to the interests of justice for leave to be granted.  The application to waive the fee was made by Mr Clark on behalf of the Ngati Karewa Te Hinga Trust, one of the intending appellants.  Mr Clark was one of the trustees of the Trust who had been removed by Randerson J’s order.

2. Against that background the present application for review faces three formidable difficulties:

   [1]       The application in respect of which waiver of the fee is sought is for an order this Court has no jurisdiction to make.  The access to justice rationale for waiver of fees cannot therefore have logical application.

   [2]       Mr Clark purports to be acting for a Trust in respect of which, as things stand at the moment, he appears to have no right to act. 

   [3]       In so far as the waiver application might be viewed as one brought by Mr Clark in his personal capacity, he has not produced any information concerning his personal financial circumstances against which the Registrar might have assessed the appropriateness of waiving the fee.

3. Both in combination and individually, these points are such that no waiver of fee was appropriate on Mr Clark’s original application to the Registrar.  I therefore uphold her decision.  This review has been dealt with on the papers in accordance with s100B(4)(b) of the Judicature Act 1908.  The application for review is accordingly dismissed.