Reid v Attorney-General - [2013] NZCA 638

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA236/2012
[2013] NZCA 638

BETWEEN	JAMES ROBERT REID Applicant
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent

Counsel:	Applicant in person D Soper for Respondent
Judgment:	11 December 2013 at 12 pm

JUDGMENT OF O’REGAN P
(Application to Review Registrar’s Decisions)

AThe application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs is dismissed. The applicant must pay the sum of $5,880 by way of security for costs within 20 working days of the date of this judgment.
BThe application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to waive the setting down fee is dismissed. The applicant must pay the fee of $2,658.40 within 20 working days of the date of this judgment.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant appealed to this Court against an order made in the High Court ordering limited discovery be made by the respondent in proceedings under s 88B of the Judicature Act 1908. On 4 May 2012 this Court declined to hear the appeal before the conclusion of the s 88B proceedings in the High Court.[1] Those proceedings have now concluded and the applicant was declared to be a vexatious litigant.[2] However, the order does not prevent him pursuing this appeal. Although he has not appealed against the s 88B decision, he has indicated to the Court that he wishes to continue to pursue the present appeal.
[1]Reid v Attorney-General [2012] NZCA 174.
[2]Attorney-General v Reid [2012] NZHC 2119, [2012] 3 NZLR 630.
There are two outstanding applications that are dealt with in this judgment:
(a)an application to review the decision of the Registrar refusing to dispense with security for costs;
(b)an application to review the decision of the Registrar refusing to waive the setting down fee.
An application by the applicant for review of the decision of the Registrar refusing to waive the filing fee for the present appeal was dismissed by Wild J. In Wild J’s decision, he summarised the background in tabular form as follows:[3]
[3]Reid v Attorney-General CA236/2012, 12 July 2012.

Date	Event
November 1998	The Attorney-General commenced a proceeding (Attorney-General v Reid, HC Wellington CP365/98) under the then s 88A Judicature Act 1908 seeking an order that Mr Reid not institute or commence civil proceedings except with the leave of the High Court.
February 2002	The Attorney-General discontinued that proceeding. The reason was apparently that Mr Reid had exercised restraint in his pursuit of extant and new litigation.
19 April 2011	Attorney-General commences a fresh proceeding (Attorney-General v Reid CIV-2011-454-254 against Mr Reid in the Palmerston North High Court, seeking orders under what is now s 88B Judicature Act 1908 – that Mr Reid not institute or continue any civil proceeding without leave of the High Court. The Attorney’s second amended statement of claim dated 20 April 2012 in that proceeding alleges that since 1984 Mr Reid has commenced at least 77 proceedings in different courts or tribunals in New Zealand. It further pleads that 54 of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Reid v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Reid v Attorney-General [2013] NZCA 638
Case: [2013] NZCA 638
Decision Date: 11 December 2013 at 12 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal, James Robert Reid sought to challenge the Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss his application to review the Registrar’s decisions regarding security for costs and the setting down fee. The appeal arose from a previous proceeding where the Attorney-General had sought to restrict Mr Reid's ability to institute legal proceedings under section 88B of the Judicature Act 1908. Mr Reid argued that he should be exempt from the security for costs and setting down fee as the appeal involved a matter of public interest. The central legal issues revolved around whether the appeal raised questions of significant public interest and whether Mr Reid's financial status justified the waivers requested.

The Court of Appeal found that the appeal did not involve issues of significant public interest but was rather a continuation of the procedural disputes in the substantive proceeding. The Court noted that Mr Reid had been declared a vexatious litigant, and the appeal was viewed as a distraction from the substantive proceeding. The Court emphasised that the appeal concerned a procedural ruling in the management of the s 88B application, without broader implications for public interest. Consequently, the Court held that there was no basis to dispense with the security for costs or to waive the setting down fee. The Court underscored that the appeal lacked exceptional circumstances that would warrant a departure from the usual requirements.

In light of the Court's reasoning, it dismissed both applications for review. Mr Reid was required to pay the security for costs amounting to $5,880 and the setting down fee of $2,658.40 within 20 working days of the judgment date. The Court concluded that the appeal did not meet the criteria for exemption from these fees, and no error in the Registrar’s decisions was demonstrated.

Orders