Slavich v Wellington District Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 15/2024
[2024] NZSC 41

BETWEEN	JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH Applicant
AND	WELLINGTON DISTRICT COURT First Respondent ATTORNEY-GENERAL Second Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Kós and Miller JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person No appearance for respondents
Judgment:	29 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 16 April 2024 (Slavich v Wellington District Court [2024] NZSC 30) is dismissed.

B There is no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks recall of this Court’s judgment of 16 April 2024 declining his application for review of a decision of a Deputy Registrar to reject an application for leave to appeal on the basis that it was not made against a decision made in the proceeding for the purposes of s 68 of the Senior Courts Act 2016.[1]
[1]Slavich v Wellington District Court [2024] NZSC 30 (Glazebrook, Kós and Miller JJ).
The circumstances are set out in the judgment and need not be repeated save to observe that the applicant:
(a)Had confirmed that he was not seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal striking out his appeal to that Court;[2] and
(b)Has since stated that nor does he seek to appeal the direction made by Mallon J, following that judgment, to take no action on a collateral complaint of contempt made against Crown counsel in the appeal.
[2]Slavich v Wellington District Court [2024] NZCA 12 (Goddard and Mallon JJ) at [17].
The latter point is at odds with the terms of the document presented for filing, which describes that direction as a “judicial breach” of “the Appellant’s rights to have the allegation considered … [and] to receive a judicial decision to that allegation”, and seeks “[a]n order on the [Court of Appeal] to hear arguments on the allegation and rule on the allegation”.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that, as our judgment concluded, absent a live proceeding below or an application for leave to appeal calculated to reinstate that former proceeding, there is no appeal sought against a decision made in the proceeding for the purposes of s 68 of the Senior Courts Act.
That absence of statutory jurisdiction renders futile the attempt by the applicant to invoke appeal rights based on the decision of this Court in Attorney-General v Chapman.[3]
[3]Attorney-General v Chapman [2011] NZSC 110, [2012] 1 NZLR 462.
The application for recall is dismissed.
As the second respondent was not asked to make any submissions, we make no order as to costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application for recall of a prior judgment from John Kenneth Slavich against the Wellington District Court and the Attorney-General. The initial judgment dismissed Slavich’s application for review of a decision by a Deputy Registrar who had rejected his application for leave to appeal. This rejection was based on the premise that Slavich's application was not made against a decision made in the proceeding as required by section 68 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The application for recall came about as Slavich had indicated that he did not seek to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal that had dismissed his appeal and also a direction made by Mallon J following that judgment.

The legal issues in this case revolved around the interpretation and application of section 68 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, specifically whether Slavich's application for leave to appeal was validly made against a decision in the proceeding. The court also had to consider whether the dismissal of Slavich's application for review was appropriate given the lack of statutory jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The central question was whether the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal was correctly decided under the statutory framework.

The court found that Slavich’s application for recall was futile as it did not seek leave to appeal against a decision made in the proceeding, which is a requirement under section 68 of the Senior Courts Act. The court emphasised that the absence of a live proceeding or a valid application for leave to appeal meant there was no appeal sought against a decision in the proceeding. The decision in Attorney-General v Chapman did not provide a basis for Slavich's appeal because it dealt with a different context. Consequently, the application for recall was dismissed, and no order was made regarding costs as the second respondent did not participate in the proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established