Reid v Attorney-General

[2013] NZCA 637

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

1. The applicant seeks an extension of time to appeal against a High Court decision relating to waiver of filing fees. 

2. 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. 

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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. 

7. 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. 

8. 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.

9. 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].

10. I can find no error in the Registrar’s decision. 

11. 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