Skelton v Bird

[2015] NZHC 2697

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-778 [2015] NZHC 2697

BETWEEN

BEVIN HALL SKELTON

Applicant

AND

CHARLES HENRY BIRD Respondent

Hearing:	2 November 2015
Appearances:	Applicant in person (Respondent's appearance excused)
Judgment:	2 November 2015

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 November 2015 at 3:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Copies to:           Applicant and Respondent in person

SKELTON v BIRD [2015] NZHC 2697 [2 November 2015]

Introduction

[1]      Mr Skelton applies for leave to appeal my judgment of 24 June 20151 to the Court of Appeal.2    He also needs leave to make the application because he did not file his application for leave to appeal within 20 working days of my decision.3

[2]      Mr Skelton, although formerly a barrister and solicitor of this Court, seeks to be treated as a lay litigant and to be given latitude for ignorance.  I accept that civil litigation was not the focus of his practice and that, despite years of litigating on his own behalf, he is not conversant with the High Court Rules.  I grant leave for him to proceed with his application to take his case to the Court of Appeal.

Application

[3]      The law is clear that a proposed appeal to the Court of Appeal must raise some question of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument.  The issue must be of sufficient importance, public or private, to justify a further appeal. As has been  said  often  in  the  past,  the  Court  of Appeal’s  function  is  not  the  general correction of error.   It  is to clarify the  law and determine whether it  has been properly interpreted and applied by the Courts below.

[4]      My judgment decided Mr Skelton’s appeals against decisions of two Judges of the District Court.  Mr Skelton wanted Judge Blackie to remove the proceeding with Mr Bird to the High Court.  Judge Blackie refused.  Mr Skelton then wanted Judge Harrison to stay or adjourn the trial of the proceeding in the District Court while he sought to have Judge Blackie’s refusal overturned.  When Judge Harrison, on the morning of the trial, declined to stay or adjourn it, Mr Skelton walked out of the Court.

[5]      Mr Skelton told me today that a short time after leaving the Court he received a telephone call  from  the registrar inquiring on  behalf  of Judge Harrison  as  to whether Mr Skelton was going to return.  Mr Skelton, with the grave courtesy that

has marked his appearances before me, told the registrar that he would not return

1      Skelton v Bird [2015] NZHC 1434.

2      Judicature Act 1908, s 67.

3      High Court Rules, r 20.22(2).

because  he  did  not  wish  to  acknowledge  the  authority  of  the  District  Court. Mr Skelton said to me in submissions that he felt there might have been some crucial issue estoppel that might hurt his related case in the High Court.

[6]      As far as I can make out, the issues that Mr Skelton would like to argue before the Court of Appeal are:

(a)      Whether I erred in ruling that any breaches of natural justice by Judge Blackie and Judge Harrison were of no consequence and that the procedures they adopted were justified; and

(b)New evidence (of bank records) which Mr Skelton has lately obtained shows that his case against Mr Bird is materially stronger than it was before Judge Harrison, and this is a ground, on an interests of justice basis, for his appeal to be heard.

Decision

[7]      I  am  not  persuaded  that  Mr  Skelton’s  case  has  issues  of  a  significance justifying attention by the Court of Appeal.  Mr Skelton had his chance to argue his case in the District Court.  He chose not to.  The case had been in the District Court for years and his application to transfer it to the High Court came late.

[8]      It might be that Mr Skelton now has evidence which would have helped him both in his case before Judge Harrison and in his appeal before me.  But there has to be an end to litigation.  It is too late to start the case again.

[9]      I refuse leave for Mr Skelton to appeal to the Court of Appeal.  I do not want to encourage Mr Skelton in any way, but I feel I should point to the existence of s 67(2) of the Judicature Act 1908 which provides for further application direct to the

Court of Appeal.

Brewer J