Vincent Ross Siemer v Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal

[2014] NZSC 43

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 22/2014
[2014] NZSC 43

BETWEEN	VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Applicant
AND	DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE COURT OF APPEAL Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person P J Gunn for Respondent
Judgment:	1 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. The proposed appeal arises out of an attempt by the applicant to file in the Auckland Registry of the High Court judicial review proceedings against a respondent identified as “Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal”.  The papers appear to have been referred to Cooper J, who directed that they should not be accepted for filing and that the applicant should be advised to file his proceedings in the Wellington Registry of the High Court.  The applicant attempted to appeal against the decision not to accept his proceedings for filing but the Registrar of the Court of Appeal declined to accept the appeal on the basis that the direction was not a “judgment, decree, or order” for the purposes of s 66 of the Judicature Act 1908.  The applicant applied for a review of this decision and this application was dismissed by O’Regan P.[1]

   [1]Siemer v Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal [2014] NZCA 5.

2. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of O’Regan P or, alternatively, against the direction of Cooper J.

3. Under r 5.1of the High Court Rules, Wellington was the appropriate registry of the High Court in which the proceedings were to be filed unless (a) a material part of the cause of action arose in Auckland and (b) the applicant followed the procedure stipulated in r 5.1(3).  There is nothing in the papers to suggest that this procedure was followed.

4. The proposed appeal raises three issues which are arguable, namely whether:

   (a)the proceedings should be rejected because the High Court Registrar or a judge is of the view that they have been filed in the wrong registry;

   (b)the decision to reject the proceedings ought to have been made without reference to the applicant; and

   (c)Cooper J’s direction is a “judgment, decree, or order” for the purposes of s 66 of the Judicature Act so as to give rise to a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.

But, given that it would have been as easy to re-file the application for review in the Wellington Registry of the High Court[2] as it was to file the notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal, there is no substantial point to the proposed appeal and it follows that:

(d)these arguments do not, in the present case, give rise to points of public or general importance; and

(e)there is no appearance of a miscarriage of justice.

[2]If proceedings had been filed in the Wellington Registry, the applicant could have applied for them to be transferred to the Auckland Registry.

1. For the same reasons, we see no good reason to grant leave to appeal direct to this Court from the direction given by Cooper J.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent