Slavich v Wellington District Court

[2023] NZCA 314

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA100/2023
 [2023] NZCA 314

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

Counsel:	Appellant in person A P Lawson and A J Vincent for First Respondent P J Gunn and I M C A McGlone for Second Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	21 July 2023 at 9.30 am

JUDGMENT OF GILBERT J

The application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. Mr Slavich filed a proceeding in the High Court seeking judicial review of a decision of the District Court rejecting a charging document for filing on the ground there was insufficient evidence to justify a trial.  The High Court struck out this proceeding on the grounds it disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action and was an abuse of process.[1]  Mr Slavich has filed a notice of appeal against this decision. 

   [1]Slavich v Wellington District Court [2023] NZHC 251.

2. Mr Slavich applied for the filing fee to be waived on the ground that the proceeding concerns a matter of genuine public interest.  The application was declined by the Deputy Registrar.  Mr Slavich’s application for review of that decision was declined by Goddard J on 24 March 2023.[2]  The Judge was satisfied that the proposed appeal does not raise any issue that it would be in the public interest for this Court to consider. 

   [2]Slavich v Wellington District Court [2023] NZCA 76.

3. Mr Slavich then applied for Goddard J’s judgment to be recalled.  He applied for a waiver of the filing fee on that application on the genuine public interest ground.  The Deputy Registrar declined to grant a waiver.  Mr Slavich applied for a review of that decision.  This was dismissed by Brown J on 21 June 2023.[3] 

   [3]Slavich v Wellington District Court [2023] NZCA 252.

4. Mr Slavich also applied to dispense with security for costs.  This application was declined by the Deputy Registrar on 17 May 2023 on the basis that Mr Slavich did not claim to be impecunious, the appeal does not raise any issue of public importance and costs are likely to follow the event in the usual way. 

5. Mr Slavich applies for a review of this decision.  The first respondent abides.  The second respondent opposes.

6. Having read the materials, I reach the same conclusion as the Deputy Registrar for the same reasons she gave. 

Result

1. The application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision is declined.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office | Te Tari Ture o te Karauna, Wellington for Respondents