Rabson v Chapman

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 22/2013
[2013] NZSC 65

BETWEEN	MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON Applicant
AND	WAYNE SEYMOUR CHAPMAN Respondent

Court:	William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person S Barker for Respondent
Judgment	2 July 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Rabson seeks leave to appeal against a decision of Randerson J of 11 February 2013[1] dismissing his application for review of the Registrar’s decision to dispense with security for costs in relation to an appeal against a judgment of Kos J of 10 December 2012.^[2]
[1]Rabson v Chapman [2013] NZCA 5.
[2]Chapman v Rabson [2012] NZHC 3322.
Mr Rabson also seeks leave to appeal against a minute of the Court of Appeal that it had no jurisdiction to review the judgment of Randerson J.
As to the proposed appeal against Randerson J’s decision, the law in relation to security for costs is well settled and the decision of Randerson J was made in accordance with established principles. No issue of public importance arises. Nor do any of the matters raised by Mr Rabson point to any risk of a miscarriage of justice.^[3]
[3]Supreme Court Act 2003, s 13.
With regard to the Court of Appeal minute, the power for a single judge to review the decision of the Registrar arises under s 61A(3) of the Judicature Act 1908. The Court of Appeal’s powers under s 61A(2) to review decisions made by a single judge of that Court are expressly limited to the review of interlocutory and incidental orders made by a single judge in chambers pursuant to s 61A(1). There is no power for the Court to review decisions made under s 61A(3).[4]
[4]Siemer v Stiassny [2013] NZSC 11 at [4].
In any event, as noted by counsel for the respondent, Mr Rabson was adjudicated bankrupt on 18 March 2013. We do not know the status of the particular appeal at issue in light of Mr Rabson’s bankruptcy.[5]
[5]Lindsay Hampton and others Brookers Insolvency Law & Practice (Loose-leaf ed, Thomson Brookers) at [IN101.05] and [IN101.07].
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Given that Mr Rabson has been adjudicated bankrupt, there is little point in making an order for costs and none is made.

Solicitors:
Buddle Finlay for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rabson v Chapman was a legal case in the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The applicant, Malcolm Edward Rabson, sought leave to appeal against a decision made by Randerson J on 11 February 2013, which dismissed Rabson's application for review of the Registrar's decision to not require security for costs in relation to an appeal against a judgment made by Kos J on 10 December 2012. Rabson also sought leave to appeal against a minute of the Court of Appeal, which stated that it had no jurisdiction to review Randerson J's judgment. The case was heard by William Young and Glazebrook JJ, with Rabson appearing in person and S Barker representing the respondent.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the Court of Appeal had the jurisdiction to review the decision of Randerson J and whether the decision made by Randerson J was in accordance with established principles of law. The court had to consider if any issue of public importance arose or if there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice. The court also needed to determine if there was any power for the Court of Appeal to review decisions made under s 61A(3) of the Judicature Act 1908.

The court found that the law in relation to security for costs was well settled and that Randerson J's decision was made in accordance with established principles. The court determined that no issue of public importance arose and that there was no risk of a miscarriage of justice. The court also found that the Court of Appeal's powers under s 61A(2) to review decisions made by a single judge of that Court were expressly limited to the review of interlocutory and incidental orders made by a single judge in chambers pursuant to s 61A(1). As a result, there was no power for the Court to review decisions made under s 61A(3). Furthermore, since Rabson had been adjudicated bankrupt on 18 March 2013, the status of the particular appeal at issue was uncertain. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and no order for costs was made.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established