Ross v District Court at Auckland

[2013] NZHC 1694

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-3024 [2013] NZHC 1694

UNDER  the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

IN THE MATTER OF       an application for leave to appeal

BETWEEN  CRAIG REECE ROSS Applicant

ANDDISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND First Respondent

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Second Respondent

Hearing:                   (On the papers)

Counsel:                  Self-represented Applicant

D N Soper for First Respondent

A Boadita-Cormican for Second Respondent

Judgment:                4 July 2013

JUDGMENT OF PETERS J [Application for Leave to Appeal]

ROSS v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2013] NZHC 1694 [4 July 2013]

[1]      On 13 February 2013 I gave a decision dismissing Mr Ross’s application for judicial review of a decision of the District Court at Auckland.1   Mr Ross seeks leave to appeal my decision.

[2]      The Second Respondent opposes Mr Ross’s application on several grounds, but including the ground that I do not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal, or application for leave to appeal, against an order in an application for judicial review.

[3]      I   accept   the   Second   Respondent’s   submission   that   this   Court   lacks jurisdiction to entertain Mr Ross’s application.  That jurisdiction lies with the Court of Appeal.  The right of appeal in respect of an application for review is conferred by s 11 of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 which provides:

11        Appeals

Any party to an application for review who is dissatisfied with any final or interlocutory order in respect of the application may appeal to the Court of Appeal; and section 66 of the principal Act shall apply to any such appeal.

[4]      Section 66 of the Judicature Act 1908 provides:

66       Court may hear appeals from judgments and orders of the High

Court

The Court of Appeal shall have jurisdiction and power to hear and determine appeals from any judgment, decree, or order save as hereinafter mentioned, of the High Court, subject to the provisions of this Act and to such rules and orders for regulating the terms and conditions on which such appeals shall be allowed as may be made pursuant to this Act.

[5]      Accordingly,  this  Court  does  not  have  jurisdiction  to  hear  Mr  Ross’s application for leave to appeal against an order on an application for judicial review. That jurisdiction lies with the Court of Appeal and must be made in accordance with Part 3 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.

[6]      I dismiss this application accordingly. There is no order as to costs.

..................................................................

M Peters J

1 Ross v District Court at Auckland [2013] NZHC 180.