Robert John Erwood v Raylee Patricia Harley

Case

[2012] NZSC 30

24 April 2012


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 132/2011
[2012] NZSC 30

BETWEEN  ROBERT JOHN ERWOOD
Applicant

AND  RAYLEE PATRICIA HARLEY
Respondent

Court:             Elias CJ, McGrath and William Young JJ

Counsel:         Applicant in Person
C R Carruthers QC for Respondent

Judgment:      24 April 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

  1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of a Judge of the Court of Appeal reviewing a decision of the Registrar of that Court in relation to disbursements payable under a Court order.[1]  The effect of the judgment was that an award of disbursements of $1,000 to the applicant made by the Registrar was set aside.  As well, other claims by the applicant for disbursements were dismissed.

    [1]      Official Assignee v Erwood [2011] NZCA 370.

  2. The applicant was notified by the Registrar, on 28 February 2012, that submissions in support of the leave application should be filed by 13 March.  The applicant advised the Court that he could not meet that date because of his ill health.  His request that an amicus be appointed to assist him was refused by a Judge of this Court who, on 22 March 2012, gave the applicant until 16 April 2012 to file submissions. 

  3. No submissions have been received.  The applicant has advised the Court that the combination of his not having a lawyer and his continuing ill health has precluded him from filing submissions.

  4. In these circumstances, we have considered the application for leave to appeal, the judgment of Randerson J and subsequent minutes regarding the applicant’s applications seeking recall of the judgment.  There is nothing in the material before the Court that indicates there is any merit in the application for leave to appeal.  Nor should the matter be remitted back to the Court of Appeal.

  5. The application is accordingly dismissed.  There will be no order for costs.


Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0