Reekie v Attorney-General

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

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.
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].

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.
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].

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.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie has applied for leave to appeal against a decision of O’Regan P, which declined to review the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal that refused to waive security for costs. The appeal concerns an underlying case that involves a claim for damages for false imprisonment and unlawful treatment in conditions of imprisonment between 2002 and 2003. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed Mr Reekie’s appeal, and O’Regan P found that the benefits of the proposed appeal were substantially outweighed by its costs, deeming it inappropriate to dispense with security for costs. The Registrar had set the security at $5,880.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court centred on whether the proposed appeal involved a matter of general or public importance or if there was a substantial miscarriage of justice. O’Regan P had applied the principles established in previous cases, determining that the appeal did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal. The court considered that the underlying appeal against the costs judgment did not present significant issues warranting a review of the security for costs decision.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of O’Regan P, dismissing Mr Reekie’s application for leave to appeal. The court found that the proposed appeal did not involve a matter of general or public importance and there was no substantial miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal regarding security for costs was upheld.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established