Prescott v Police

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 18/2018
[2018] NZSC 43

BETWEEN	PETER RICHARD PRESCOTT Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person K M Wakelin and G E W Montgomery for Respondent
Judgment:	9 May 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe applicant’s applications for leave to appeal and to set aside the High Court judgment are dismissed.
BThe applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal out of time against the dismissal in the High Court of an application to set aside a bankruptcy notice[1] and sought a waiver in respect of the filing fee. This was refused by the Deputy Registrar. His application to review that decision was dismissed by Brown J.[2] He now seeks leave to appeal to this Court against the decision of Brown J.
[1]Prescott v New Zealand Police [2017] NZHC 2701 (Associate Judge Bell).
[2]Prescott v New Zealand Police [2018] NZCA 16.
The point which the applicant wishes to advance is that he is not a “person” and thus not subject to the Insolvency Act 2006. We do not propose to engage with this argument, save to say that it is self-evidently wrong.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed as is a further document which the applicant has filed, styled “[a]pplication as of right to have the judgment of Associate Judge Bell set aside under the doctrine on ex debito justitiae”.
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Prescott v Police, the applicant, Peter Richard Prescott, sought leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of his application to set aside a bankruptcy notice and a waiver of the filing fee. The High Court had already dismissed the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice, and the Court of Appeal had also dismissed Prescott's application to review that decision. Prescott then applied to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision. The primary legal issue was whether Prescott could appeal the Court of Appeal's decision out of time and whether his argument that he is not a "person" under the Insolvency Act 2006 was valid. The Court found Prescott's argument to be self-evidently wrong and dismissed both his application for leave to appeal and his application to set aside the High Court judgment.

The Supreme Court declined to engage with Prescott's argument that he is not a "person" and therefore not subject to the Insolvency Act 2006. The Court found this argument to be incorrect and refused to entertain it further. The Court also dismissed Prescott's application as of right to set aside the judgment of the Associate Judge under the doctrine of ex debito justitiae. The Court was clear that Prescott's arguments lacked merit and that the previous decisions dismissing his applications were correct.

The Supreme Court's reasoning was straightforward: Prescott's arguments were deemed to be without merit and the Court found no grounds to grant him leave to appeal or to set aside the judgment. The Court also held that Prescott should pay the respondent's costs of $2,500. The Supreme Court's decision reinforced the finality of the Court of Appeal's judgment and clarified that Prescott's arguments had no legal basis.

The final orders of the Supreme Court were that Prescott's applications for leave to appeal and to set aside the High Court judgment were dismissed, and Prescott was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of $2,500. This outcome emphasised the Court's stance on the unmerited nature of Prescott's claims and the finality of the previous judgments against him.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established