Vukomanovic v Residence Review Board

[2011] NZCA 74

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA845/2010
[2011] NZCA 74

BETWEEN  GORDANA VUKOMANOVIC
Appellant

AND  RESIDENCE REVIEW BOARD
Respondent

Counsel:         Appellant in Person
J Foster for Respondent

Judgment:      17 March 2011 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF CHAMBERS J

The appellant’s application for review of the Registrar’s decision regarding security for costs is dismissed. 

REASONS

1. Gordana Vukomanovic, the appellant, appeals from a decision of Joseph Williams J[1] dated 17 November 2010 declining to set aside his decision dated 4 August 2010[2] wherein he dismissed the appellant’s application for judicial review of the Residence Review Board’s decision, finding the Board’s analysis of submissions and weighing of various factors could not be faulted.  Ms Vukomanovic has not brought an appeal in respect of the decision of 4 August 2010.

   [1]Vukomanovic v Chief Executive of the Department of Labour HC Wellington CIV-2010-485-497, 17 November 2010. 

   [2]      Vukomanovic v Residence Review Board HC Wellington CIV-2010-485-497, 4 August 2010.

2. Ms Vukomanovic applied for waiver of security for costs.  The Registrar considered that application.  She refused to dispense with security, but determined that, in view of Ms Vukomanovic’s financial position, the amount of security should be reduced to $2,500.[3]

   [3]      Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6). 

3. Ms Vukomanovic has now applied for a review of the Registrar’s decision.  I have reconsidered the matter, but confirm the Registrar’s decision.  The appeal is frankly hopeless.  It raises no matters of public interest.  It is well settled that a respondent should not face the costs of a hopeless appeal without the provision for security.[4]

   [4]      Clarke v Watts [2010] NZCA 221 at [10].

4. If anything, the Registrar’s decision was lenient towards Ms Vukomanovic.  The evidence as to her financial circumstances was sparse and incomplete.  The Registrar effectively gave Ms Vukomanovic the benefit of the doubt in finding she was a woman of very limited means. 

5. The Registrar correctly considered the evidence before her and correctly applied the law with respect to the circumstances when security for costs should be waived or reduced.  For these reasons, I dismiss the application for review. 

6. I have expressed strong views as to the chances of success of this appeal.  If Ms Vukomanovic decides to pay security for costs and continue with the appeal, I give her an assurance that I will not be part of the panel which determines that appeal.  Nor will that panel be shown this judgment. 

7. I give Ms Vukomanovic until 13 April 2011 to pay the security for costs fixed by the Registrar.  I give that extended time as I want to encourage Ms Vukomanovic to seek legal advice with respect to this appeal.  If she does that, she will almost certainly be given advice that the appeal is hopeless.  If she does get such advice and accepts it, she can then save herself the amount of security and simply abandon the appeal.  If she were to take that course, almost certainly the Crown would not seek costs against her on the abandoned appeal. 

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington