White v Lynch

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA740/2015
[2016] NZCA 149

BETWEEN

AMANDA ADELE WHITE
First Appellant

ANNE LEOLINE EMILY FREEMAN
Second Appellant

AND

CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH
First Defendant

STUART GORDON SPENCE
Second Defendant

Judgment:

(On the papers)

22 April 2016 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

The application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision declining to accept for filing an application for review is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The appellants filed an appeal against a decision of Faire J in the High Court.[1] They applied to dispense with security for costs on appeal. Deputy Registrar McGrath declined to dispense with security. Wild J upheld that decision.[2]
[1]White v Lynch [2015] NZHC 3202.
[2]White v Lynch [2016] NZCA 78.
The appellants then filed an application under s 61A(2) of the Judicature Act 1908 for a panel of Judges of this Court to review Wild J’s decision. Deputy Registrar Abraham declined to accept that application for filing.
The appellants now apply for review of that decision.

Discussion

Deputy Registrar Abraham was plainly correct to decline to accept the application for filing.
Wild J was reviewing a decision of Deputy Registrar McGrath under s 61A(3) of the Judicature Act. As the Supreme Court explained in Reekie v Attorney-General, it is clear from the structure of s 61A that review decisions of a single Judge under s 61A(3) are not subject to further review under s 61A(2).[3]

Decision

[3]Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63, [2014] 1 NZLR 737 at [24]–[26]. See also Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2013] NZSC 112 at [3].

The application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision declining to accept for filing an application for review of Wild J’s decision is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Sellar Bone, Auckland for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in White v Lynch was brought before the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. Amanda Adele White and Anne Leoline Emily Freeman, the appellants, sought to challenge a decision made by Faire J in the High Court, with their application for security for costs on appeal having been declined by Deputy Registrar McGrath. Wild J subsequently upheld the decision of McGrath. The appellants then filed an application under section 61A(2) of the Judicature Act 1908 for a panel of Judges to review Wild J’s decision. However, Deputy Registrar Abraham declined to accept this application for filing. The appellants now sought to review that decision.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the application for review of Wild J’s decision could be further reviewed by a panel of Judges under section 61A(2) of the Judicature Act 1908. This question hinged on the interpretation of section 61A of the Act, specifically whether review decisions of a single Judge under section 61A(3) are subject to further review under section 61A(2). The Court considered the structure of section 61A and previous case law, particularly Reekie v Attorney-General and Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner.

The Court found that Deputy Registrar Abraham was correct in declining to accept the application for filing. As explained in Reekie v Attorney-General, the structure of section 61A of the Judicature Act indicates that review decisions of a single Judge under section 61A(3) are not subject to further review under section 61A(2). The Court concluded that the application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision declining to accept the application for filing was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established