Nottingham v Maltese Cat Limited

The case of Nottingham v Maltese Cat Limited concerns two appeals from decisions of Fogarty J in defamation proceedings in the High Court at Auckland. The appellant, Mr Nottingham, sought to appeal the interlocutory decisions made by Fogarty J in relation to the defamation proceedings. The respondents, Maltese Cat Limited and others, opposed the appeals on the basis of the requirement for security for costs. The appeals were heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, where the appellant sought a review of the Deputy Registrar's decision to not dispense with the security for costs.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Deputy Registrar's decision to decline to dispense with security for costs in CA571/2017 and CA572/2017 was correct. The Court had to consider the principles applicable to dispensation from security for costs, as outlined in Reekie v Attorney-General, and whether the appeals met the criteria for dispensation.

The Court of Appeal found that the Deputy Registrar's decision in relation to CA571/2017 was correct, as the appeal did not meet the criteria for dispensation as it had little or no merit and did not raise any issues of public interest. However, in relation to CA572/2017, the Court granted the application to review the Deputy Registrar's decision and dispensed with the requirement for security for costs. The Court found that a solvent appellant would reasonably wish to pursue the limitation issue because if successful, it would provide a defence to the respondents' claim.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application to review the Deputy Registrar's decision declining to dispense with security for costs in CA571/2017, and the appellant was required to pay security for costs of $6,600 by 15 July 2019. However, the Court granted the application to review the Deputy Registrar's decision declining to dispense with security for costs in CA572/2017, and security for costs was dispensed with in respect of CA572/2017.