Szekely v North

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA249/2017
[2017] NZCA 295

BETWEEN	JOZSEF GABOR SZEKELY Appellant
AND	SAMUEL RAYMOND NORTH First Respondent
DEBBIE VIVIAN NORTH Second Respondent

Counsel:

Q S Haines for Appellant
First Respondent in person

Judgment:

(On the papers)

11 July 2017 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF FRENCH J
Review of Registrar’s Decision

The application for review of the Registrar’s decision declining to grant the appellant a refund of filing fees is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

When Mr Szekely’s lawyer filed the notice of appeal in this case on 12 May 2017, he also paid the filing fee of $1,100.00. Mr Szekely subsequently sought a refund of the fee. This was declined by the Registrar.
Mr Szeleky now seeks a review of the Registrar’s decision.
In support of his application for review, Mr Szekely relies on an affidavit sworn by a Mr Corke. However, the affidavit concerns Mr Corke’s own dealings with the respondents and his adverse view of the respondents. It is irrelevant for present purposes.
The second argument advanced by Mr Szekely is that he is in debt as a result of this litigation and it is the respondents who are to blame for that state of affairs because they have seriously misled the Court.
I accept, as did the Registrar, that Mr Szekely has a large amount of debt comprised mainly of legal fees and costs arising out of this litigation. Whether the respondents have seriously misled the Court is, however, for another day. It cannot be determined at this stage. What matters at this stage as regards filing fees is that although Mr Szekely has debt, he also has a not insignificant income. I am satisfied he is able to pay the filing fees.
I note too that Mr Szekely has stated he will continue with the proceeding regardless of the outcome regarding payment of filing fees.
Finally I am satisfied the appeal does not concern a matter of genuine public interest within the meaning of reg 5(4) of the Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001.
Accordingly I confirm the Registrar’s decision as correct and decline the application for review.

Solicitors:
Q H Law, Levin for Appellant

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between Jozsef Gabor Szekely and Samuel Raymond North and Debbie Vivian North came before the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appeal was brought by Szekely against the decision of the Registrar to decline his request for a refund of the filing fee he had paid upon lodging his notice of appeal. The respondents, North and his wife, were represented in person, while Szekely was represented by Q S Haines.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether the Registrar's decision to decline the refund of the filing fee was justified. Szekely argued that he was entitled to a refund due to his financial hardship resulting from the litigation, and that the respondents had misled the court, contributing to his debt. The court considered Szekely's affidavit, which was deemed irrelevant as it did not address the issue of the filing fee refund. The court also noted Szekely's significant income and his ability to pay the filing fee, and concluded that the matter did not involve a genuine public interest as per the Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001.

In confirming the Registrar's decision, the court held that Szekely's financial situation, while concerning, did not warrant a refund of the filing fee. The court was not persuaded by Szekely's argument that the respondents had misled the court, as this was a matter for another stage of the proceedings. The court was satisfied that Szekely's ability to continue with the appeal was not contingent on the outcome of the refund request. The application for review was thus declined.

The final order of the court was that the application for review of the Registrar’s decision declining to grant the appellant a refund of filing fees was declined. The appeal did not concern a matter of genuine public interest, and Szekely's financial situation did not justify a refund of the filing fee.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established