Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 21/2017
[2017] NZSC 74

BETWEEN

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON
Applicant

AND

JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER
First Respondent

JUSTICES ELIAS, YOUNG, GLAZEBROOK, ARNOLD AND OʼREGAN
Second Respondents

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person C P A Cross for First Respondent H M Carrad for Second Respondents
Judgment:	16 May 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a decision of Brown J in the Court of Appeal dismissing applications (a) for review of the decision of a Deputy Registrar declining to dispense with security for costs and (b) to extend time for the filing of the application for dispensation.[1] The underlying appeal was against a minute of Williams J striking out the second respondents as parties to proceedings to judicially review a decision of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.[2] The substantive judicial review application has since been dismissed.[3]
[1]Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2017] NZCA 44 [Rabson (CA)].
[2]Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner HC Wellington CIV-2016-485-781, 1 November 2016.
[3]Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2016] NZHC 3162.
The background to the applications dismissed by Brown J is outlined in his judgment.[4] He saw the underlying appeal as not being reasonably arguable.[5] He was also satisfied that a reasonable and solvent litigant would not pursue the appeal.[6] In dismissing the applications, he applied well-established principles.
[4]Rabson (CA), above n 1, at [1]–[6].
[5]At [10].
[6]At [11].`
The proposed appeal does not raise any question of public or general importance and there is no appearance of a miscarriage of justice. The criteria for leave thus not being satisfied, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Wellington for First Respondent
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Second Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner, the applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal had dismissed applications for review of a decision by a Deputy Registrar, which had declined to dispense with security for costs, as well as an application to extend the time for filing the review application. The underlying appeal concerned a decision to strike out the justices as parties to proceedings for judicial review of a decision by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. The substantive judicial review application had already been dismissed.

The central legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Court of Appeal's decision was reasonably arguable and whether there was a miscarriage of justice or a question of public or general importance. The Court had to determine if the criteria for granting leave to appeal were met, based on the established principles of appellate jurisdiction and the Court of Appeal's findings.

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had correctly applied well-established principles in dismissing the applications. Brown J had concluded that the underlying appeal was not reasonably arguable and that a reasonable and solvent litigant would not pursue it. The Supreme Court upheld these findings, emphasizing that the proposed appeal did not raise any question of public or general importance or indicate a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established