Strange (Aka Petryszick) v Casey Farms Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 16/2024
[2024] NZSC 42

BETWEEN	PETER MORRISON STRANGE (AKA PETER MORRISON PETRYSZICK) Applicant
AND	CASEY FARMS LIMITED First Respondent BROSNA FARM LIMITED Second Respondent JOTAC LIMITED Third Respondent WG BROADBENT & CO TRUSTEES LIMITED Fourth Respondent PB AND BL CASEY PARTNERSHIP Fifth Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Miller JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person No appearance for First Respondent G N E Bradford for Second, Third and Fifth Respondents B R Webster and R J Ropati for Fourth Respondent
Judgment:	30 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
BThe applicant must pay the second, third and fifth respondents one set of costs of $1,250 and the fourth respondent costs of $1,250.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant, who refers to himself as Mr Strange, seeks leave to appeal directions given by a single Judge of the Court of Appeal in the course of managing Mr Strange’s application to appeal a High Court costs judgment.[1] The directions given were that Mr Strange not file irrelevant or abusive material when making his submissions.
[1]Strange v Casey Farms Ltd [2023] NZHC 3319 (Associate Judge Brittain).
It is arguable that the decisions were a mere matter of administration and this Court lacks jurisdiction. But rather than resolve that issue, we will approach the application on the assumption that we do.[2] The application manifestly does not meet the statutory criteria for leave; it raises no question of general or public importance and no question of a miscarriage of justice.[3]
[2]See, for example, Nuku v R [2018] NZSC 96 at [8].
[3]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2).
The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed.
As the second, third, fourth and fifth respondents have filed submissions in opposition, they are entitled to costs. The applicant must pay the second, third and fifth respondents one set of costs of $1,250 and the fourth respondent costs of $1,250.[4]
[4]We reject the respondents’ submissions seeking indemnity costs.

Solicitors:
M J Walmsley, Paeroa for Second, Third and Fifth Respondents
Morgan Coakle, Auckland for Fourth Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand recently heard an application from Peter Morrison Strange (also known as Peter Morrison Petryszick) seeking leave to appeal against directions issued by a single Judge of the Court of Appeal. These directions pertained to the management of Mr Strange's application to appeal a High Court costs judgment, specifically prohibiting him from filing irrelevant or abusive material when making his submissions. The respondents to the application included Casey Farms Limited, Brosna Farm Limited, Jotac Limited, WG Broadbent & Co Trustees Limited, and PB and BL Casey Partnership. The matter was heard by Glazebrook, Ellen France, and Miller JJ, with Mr Strange representing himself and various counsel appearing for the respondents.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and if the application met the statutory criteria for leave to appeal. The Court considered whether the directions were administrative in nature and, if so, whether the Court had jurisdiction over such matters. The Court also examined whether the application raised any questions of general or public importance or questions regarding a miscarriage of justice, as required by statute. The Court concluded that the application did not meet the statutory criteria for leave to appeal, as it did not raise any significant legal issues.

In dismissing the application, the Supreme Court held that the directions issued by the Court of Appeal were administrative and within the Court's jurisdiction. The Court found that Mr Strange's application did not raise any questions of general or public importance, nor did it point to any miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The Court also ordered Mr Strange to pay costs to the second, third, fourth, and fifth respondents, totaling $1,250 each, but rejected the respondents' submissions seeking indemnity costs.

This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the limited grounds upon which leave to appeal may be granted. It reinforces the principle that applications for leave to appeal must meet specific statutory criteria and that the Supreme Court will not entertain applications that do not raise significant legal issues.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established