Reid v Attorney-General

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA329/2012
[2013] NZCA 637

BETWEEN	JAMES ROBERT REID Applicant
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent

Counsel:	Applicant in person D Soper for Respondent
Judgment:	11 December 2013 at 2 pm

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

The application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs is dismissed. The applicant must pay the sum of $5,560 by way of security for costs within 20 working days of the date of this judgment.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks an extension of time to appeal against a High Court decision relating to waiver of filing fees.
The applicant had made an application in the High Court to strike out the Attorney-General’s application under s 88B of the Judicature Act 1908 to have the applicant declared a vexatious litigant. He sought a waiver of the filing fee, which was refused by the High Court Registrar. He then sought a review of that decision and Miller J dismissed the application for review.
The applicant sought to appeal that decision to this Court but the appeal was not accepted for filing. I later directed that, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Siemer v Heron,[1] it should have been accepted. I said that if the applicant wished to pursue the matter he should submit the notice of appeal again and seek an extension of time to file it. This he has now done. I later ruled that the hearing of the application for extension of time should encompass also the merits of the appeal, so that if the extension of time was granted the Court can dealt with the substantive appeal at the same hearing.
[1]Siemer v Heron [2011] NZSC 133, [2012] 1 NZLR 309.
Security for costs for the matter was set by the Registrar in the sum of $5,560. The applicant applied to the Registrar for security to be dispensed with under r 35(6) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 on the grounds that the appeal involved a question of law which made it a matter of genuine public interest. The application for dispensation of security was opposed by the respondents.
The Registrar declined to dispense with security. She said that there were no circumstances relating to the matter that could be considered exceptional, and that there was nothing of public importance or significance in the matters raised in the appeal. She also rejected an argument made by the applicant that security was unnecessary because the respondent was the New Zealand Government, which had unlimited resources. That aspect of her ruling relied on the decision of this Court in Siemer v Chief Justice.[2]
[2]Siemer v Chief Justice [2011] NZCA 183.
In his application for review, the applicant argues that the Registrar was wrong on both of these matters. He also argues that the issues relating to fee waiver and dispensation from the requirement to pay security are important, and points to the fact that he has sought to challenge payment of security and court fees in the past.
I agree with the Registrar that the issues that will be raised on the appeal if an extension of time is granted are not matters of public significance. The decision under appeal was a straightforward application of established principles and did not raise any matter of significance. Nor can the intended appeal be said to be of an exceptional character. The proceeding to which the waiver application related has been concluded and the applicant has been declared a vexatious litigant. Although that ruling does not prevent him from pursuing this appeal, it is difficult to see any utility in his doing so. There is no reason why the Crown, as respondent, should not have the normal protection provided by an order for security for costs. The fact that the Crown has financial resources does not mean it is not entitled to the same protection as any other litigant.
The applicant has brought similar appeals to this Court and has refused to pay security or sought a similar dispensation without success.[3] Repetition of similar claims does not give them a public interest status.
[3]Reid v Tararua District Council [2010] NZCA 329, Reid v Deputy Registrar at Palmerston North [2010] NZCA 348.
The applicant points out that the Deputy Registrar waived the filing fee in this matter. That decision was, however, made under different provisions[4] and is, in any event, not binding on me.
[4]See Koroniadis v Bank of New Zealand [2013] NZCA 524 at [4].
I can find no error in the Registrar’s decision.
I therefore uphold the Registrar’s decision and dismiss the applicant’s application for review. The applicant must pay the sum of $5,560 by way of security for costs within 20 working days of the date of this judgment.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

The case of Reid v Attorney-General involved an appeal against a decision made by the Registrar of the High Court of New Zealand, who had refused to waive the security for costs for the applicant, James Robert Reid. The applicant sought to appeal the Registrar's decision but needed an extension of time to do so. The Registrar had set the security for costs at $5,560, which the applicant sought to have dispensed with on the grounds that the appeal involved a question of law of genuine public interest. The Registrar declined the application, finding that the appeal did not involve any matter of public importance or significance and that the respondent, being the New Zealand Government, had unlimited resources, a point that was rejected based on the Court of Appeal's decision in Siemer v Chief Justice.

The court was required to decide whether the Registrar's decision to deny the waiver of security for costs was correct. The applicant argued that the issues raised on appeal were of significant public interest, pointing to the fact that the Deputy Registrar had waived the filing fee in this matter. The court had to consider whether the issues raised by the applicant were indeed of public importance and whether the Registrar's decision was correct in light of the existing legal principles.

The Court of Appeal found that the issues raised on appeal were not matters of public significance and that the decision under appeal was a straightforward application of established principles. The court held that the proceeding to which the waiver application related had been concluded, and the applicant had been declared a vexatious litigant. Although this ruling did not prevent the applicant from pursuing the appeal, the court saw no utility in doing so. The court also found that the fact that the Crown had financial resources did not mean it was not entitled to the same protection as any other litigant. The applicant's history of similar appeals without success was noted, and it was held that repetition of similar claims did not give them a public interest status. The court found no error in the Registrar's decision and upheld it, dismissing the applicant's application for review.

The final order of the Court of Appeal was that the applicant must pay the sum of $5,560 by way of security for costs within 20 working days of the date of this judgment. The appeal against the Registrar's decision to deny the waiver of security for costs was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established