Reekie v Attorney-General

[2014] NZSC 161

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 96/2014
[2014] NZSC 161

BETWEEN

NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE
Applicant

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (sued on behalf of the Department of Corrections)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Second Respondent

DISTRICT COURT AT WAITAKERE
Third Respondent

Court:	McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person J Foster for the First, Second and Third Respondents
Judgment:	11 November 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The application

1. Mr Reekie is seeking leave to appeal against a decision of O’Regan P declining to review the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal refusing to waive security for costs and fixing security at $5,880.[1]

   [1]Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZCA 374.

2. O’Regan P considered that Mr Reekie’s appeal is “one where the benefits to be obtained are substantially outweighed by the costs of the exercise”.[2]  This meant that it was not an appropriate case for dispensing with security for costs.[3]

The underlying appeal

[2]At [8].

[3]At [8].

1. The underlying appeal is against a costs judgment of Wylie J dated 24 October 2012.[4]  The costs decision relates to a substantive claim alleging false imprisonment and unlawful treatment in Mr Reekie’s conditions of imprisonment in 2002 and 2003.[5]

   [4]Reekie v Attorney-General [2012] NZHC 2786.

   [5]Reekie v Attorney General [2012] NZHC 1867. Mr Reekie succeeded on two of the ten causes of action pleaded.

2. In his costs judgment, Wylie J awarded Mr Reekie $1,000 towards the costs incurred for counsel’s fees in preparing the original statement of claim.[6]  Wylie J did not allow Mr Reekie to recover for any other claimed disbursements as the Judge did not accept these were incurred by Mr Reekie personally and/or that they were properly claimed.

Our assessment

[6]Reekie v Attorney-General, above n 4, at [16].

1. The proposed appeal to this Court does not involve a matter of general or public importance and there is no substantial miscarriage of justice.  O’Regan P applied the principles set out by this Court in Reekie v Attorney-General.[7]

   [7]Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63.

2. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for First, Second and Third Respondents