Slavich v Wellington District Court

[2024] NZSC 41

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

1. 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).

2. 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].

3. 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”.

4. 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. 

5. 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.

6. The application for recall is dismissed.

7. As the second respondent was not asked to make any submissions, we make no order as to costs.