Reid v Her Majesty's New Zealand Government

[2009] NZCA 238

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA345/2008
[2009] NZCA 238

BETWEENJAMES ROBERT REID

Appellant

ANDHER MAJESTY'S NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT

First Respondent

ANDTARARUA DISTRICT COUNCIL

Second Respondent

Counsel:Appellant in person

J A L Oliver for First Respondent
R P Brier for Second Respondent

Judgment:9 June 2009 at 10 am 

JUDGMENT OF ARNOLD J

The application for review of the Registrar’s decision concerning security for costs is dismissed.

REASONS

[1]       This appeal arises out of a interlocutory decision by Miller J in judicial review proceedings brought by the appellant against several defendants: HC WN CIV 2008-485-327 21 May 2008.  Among those defendants was “Her Majesty’s New Zealand Government”.  In his judgment, Miller J determined that the claim against “Her Majesty’s New Zealand Government” was untenable and made an order removing the Crown as a party and striking out those paragraphs of the claim that related to it. 

[2] This appeal is against those orders. (The proceedings are more fully described in an earlier judgment of this Court delivered on 13 October 2008: [2008] NZCA 417 at [1]).

[3]       The Registrar fixed security for costs in the appeal at $9,480.  The appellant applied for a waiver.  The Registrar declined the waiver but did reduce the amount of security to $4,740.  The appellant seeks a review of the Registrar’s decision. 

[4]       In essence, the appellant advances three grounds in support of the review:

1.        The appeal raises issues of public importance;

2.        Other fees have been waived, in particular the filing fee;

3.“Crown Law have subverted statute law and due process, therefore is not entitled to security”.

[5]       I am satisfied that none of the grounds advanced justifies me in setting aside the Registrar’s decision. 

[6]       First, the appeal does not raise any issue of public importance.  Miller J’s decision did not bring the proceedings to an end.  Rather, the appellant is able to pursue his claims, but against the proper defendant. 

[7]       Second, the fact that some Court fees have been waived does not mean that security for costs should similarly be waived.  Security for costs is for the protection of the respondents should the appeal fail.  As Miller J noted in his decision (at [17]), the appellant has not paid costs awarded against him in the past, even though he has the funds to do so.  This is a powerful factor against waiver.

[8]       Third, there is nothing in the material provided by the appellant to give any substance to his claim about the conduct of the Crown Law Office.  It is simply an assertion, which is in any event irrelevant.  I note Miller J’s observation at [11] of his decision that the appellant had advanced a number of “scandalous allegations” in the argument before him.  This allegation against the Crown Law Office appears to be of the same character.

[9]       Accordingly, I dismiss the application for review of the Registrar’s decision in relation to security for costs.  The appellant must pay security as fixed by the Registrar.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office for the First Respondent.

Simpson Grierson, Wellington for the Second Respondent.