Sixtus v Ardern

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 49/2023
[2023] NZSC 84

BETWEEN	CATHERINE ANNE SIXTUS Applicant
AND	JACINDA ARDERN First Respondent KRIS FAAFOI Second Respondent ANDREW LITTLE Third Respondent ASHLEY BLOOMFIELD Fourth Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Williams and Kós JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person P J Gunn and A J Vincent for Respondents
Judgment:	12 July 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is dismissed.

BThe applicant must pay the respondents one set of costs of $1,000.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks leave to appeal a decision by Brown J in the Court of Appeal refusing (on review from a decision of the Deputy Registrar) to waive the filing fee in that Court.[1] The appeal to which Brown J’s decision related was that of Cooke J in the High Court who struck out the applicant’s judicial review proceedings as an abuse of process.[2] Ms Sixtus’ failure to prosecute the appeal in light of the fee waiver decision led to the appeal being deemed abandoned.[3] That order has since been sealed.
[1]Sixtus v Ardern [2022] NZCA 372.
[2]Sixtus v Ardern [2022] NZHC 1161.
[3]Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 43.
In complex, wide-ranging and discursive submissions, the applicant essentially argues that the fee waiver decision denied her access to justice.[4] Underpinning her argument is the further argument that the issues at stake in the substantive proceeding are matters of significant public interest.[5]
[4]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(b).
[5]Section 74(2)(a).
Since the applicant’s substantive appeal in the Court of Appeal is no longer extant, having been abandoned, this application for leave in relation to that Court’s refusal to waive the filing fee is now moot.
The criteria in s 74 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 for the grant of leave are therefore not met. The notice of application for leave to appeal was filed out of time. In these circumstances there is no point in granting an extension of time.
The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the respondents one set of costs of $1,000.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Catherine Anne Sixtus applied for leave to appeal a decision made by Brown J in the Court of Appeal, which had refused to waive a filing fee. The respondents in the case were Jacinda Ardern, Kris Faafoi, Andrew Little, and Ashley Bloomfield. The court was asked to decide whether to grant an extension of time for the applicant to apply for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision, which had resulted in her judicial review proceedings being struck out as an abuse of process. The applicant argued that the refusal to waive the filing fee denied her access to justice, particularly as the issues in her substantive proceeding were of significant public interest. The court held that the application was moot since the substantive appeal had been abandoned, and the criteria for granting leave under the Senior Courts Act 2016 were not met. Consequently, the application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay one set of costs of $1,000 to the respondents.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established