Richard Hugh Cleveland Guy v Bank of New Zealand

[2013] NZSC 127

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

[2013] NZSC 127

BETWEEN	RICHARD HUGH CLEVELAND GUY Applicant
AND	BANK OF NEW ZEALAND Respondent

Court:	McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	18 November 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. Mr Guy appealed to the Court of Appeal against an order by an Associate Judge adjudicating him bankrupt.[1]  He applied for a waiver of the filing fee which was refused by the Registrar, whose decision was subsequently confirmed by Stevens J.[2]  Mr Guy then applied to this Court for leave to appeal against Stevens J’s judgment and also sought waiver of this Court’s filing fee.  The Registrar refused that application.

   [1]Guy v Bank of New Zealand [2013] NZHC 836.

   [2]Guy v Bank of New Zealand [2013] NZCA 238.

2. Arnold J has upheld the Registrar’s decision in a fully reasoned judgment.[3]  Neither Stevens J nor Arnold J were satisfied that Mr Guy would face undue hardship if required to pay the filing fee in the respective Courts.   

   [3]Guy v Bank of New Zealand [2013] NZSC 105.

3. Mr Guy has now applied for other Judges of the Supreme Court to review Arnold J’s decision under s 28(3) of the Supreme Court Act 2003.  That provision empowers Judges of the Court, who have jurisdiction to hear and determine a proceeding to confirm, modify or revoke a decision made by a single Judge under s 28(2). 

4. Arnold J’s decision was not, however, made under that provision.  It was made under s 40, which is a specific provision in the Act dealing with review of the Registrar’s decisions concerning fees.  Section 40 gives a person aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar refusing to waive a filing fee a right to have the decision reviewed by a Judge of the Court.  There is no further right of review against the Judge’s decision.

5. There is accordingly no jurisdiction to determine Mr Guy’s application for review, which is accordingly dismissed.