William Patrick Jeffries v The Attorney-General and the Privacy Commissioner

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 41/2009

[2009] NZSC 55
BETWEENWILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES

Applicant

ANDTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Respondent

SC 42/2009
BETWEENWILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES

Applicant

ANDTHE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

Respondent

Court:Blanchard, Tipping and Wilson JJ
Counsel:D H O'Leary for Applicant

H S Hancock for Respondent in SC 41/2009
C Gwyn and D Baltakmens for Respondent in SC 42/2009

Judgment:3 June 2009

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

B THE APPLICANT IS ORDERED TO PAY TO EACH RESPONDENT THE SUM OF $2,500 PLUS DISBURSEMENTS, TO BE FIXED IF NECESSARY BY THE REGISTRAR.

REASONS
[1] These applications for leave to appeal directly from the High Court have an unusual dimension. The applicant has already appealed to the Court of Appeal from the decisions in question. That appeal is due to be heard next week. The present applications are accordingly substantially out of time.
[2] Furthermore, we are not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated any case for now bypassing the Court of Appeal. Specifically, we are not satisfied that the applicant has shown the necessary exceptional circumstances under s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 to justify his applications. There is no good reason why the appeal in this Court, due to be heard in July, and related to a separate issue, need be determined prior to next week’s hearing in the Court of Appeal.
Solicitors:
Duncan Cotterill, Wellington for Applicant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of William Patrick Jeffries v The Attorney-General and the Privacy Commissioner involves an applicant seeking leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court of New Zealand from decisions of the High Court. The applicant had already appealed to the Court of Appeal, which was scheduled to be heard shortly, making the applications for leave to appeal substantially out of time. The Court was required to determine whether exceptional circumstances existed under section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 to justify bypassing the Court of Appeal. The Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated such circumstances.

The Supreme Court evaluated the urgency and necessity of the applicant bypassing the Court of Appeal. Given that the Court of Appeal was set to hear the appeal, and the issues to be determined in the Supreme Court were separate, the Court was not persuaded that the applicant's appeal needed to be heard before the Court of Appeal's hearing. The Court concluded that the applicant had not met the threshold for exceptional circumstances under the statute, leading to the dismissal of the applications for leave to appeal. The Court also ordered the applicant to pay costs to each respondent.

As a result of the Court's decision, the applications for leave to appeal were dismissed. The Court ordered the applicant to pay to each respondent the sum of $2,500 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. This ruling underscores the importance of demonstrating exceptional circumstances when seeking to bypass the Court of Appeal in favour of a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established