Szekely v North

[2017] NZCA 295

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

1. 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.

2. Mr Szeleky now seeks a review of the Registrar’s decision.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. I note too that Mr Szekely has stated he will continue with the proceeding regardless of the outcome regarding payment of filing fees.

7. 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.

8. Accordingly I confirm the Registrar’s decision as correct and decline the application for review.

Solicitors:
Q H Law, Levin for Appellant