Williams v Attorney-General - [2019] NZCA 348

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA209/2019
[2019] NZCA 348

BETWEEN	PETER ANTHONY WILLIAMS Applicant
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent

Counsel:	Applicant in person J M Webber and A R Goodison for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	1 August 2019 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J
(Review of Deputy Registrar’s decision)

The application to review the Deputy Registrar’s decision granting the applicant an extension of three working days to file his appeal is granted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 15 May 2019, Mr Williams filed a notice of appeal against Associate Judge Matthews’ decision to strike out Mr Williams’ proceedings against the Attorney‑General.[1] This appeal was filed three working days out of time.[2] The Deputy Registrar extended the time for filing Mr Williams’ appeal and accepted the appeal for filing.[3]
[1]Williams v The Crown New Zealand Attorney-General [2019] NZHC 754.
[2]Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 29(1)(a).
[3]Rule 5A(1)(c).
The Attorney-General seeks a review of this decision.[4]

Background

[4]Rule 5A(3)(a).

This litigation has an extensive history. The dispute originates from the sale of Mr Williams’ business in 2004. He had commissioned a firm of accountants to act on the sale. Issues arose which eventuated in Mr Williams bringing a claim against the accountants in the District Court. There it was determined that a settlement had already been reached and the claim was struck out.[5] This was overturned by the High Court on appeal and the question of whether a settlement had been reached sent back to the District Court.[6] On 26 October 2012, the District Court determined that a settlement had been reached.[7] Mr Williams has unsuccessfully attempted to challenge this decision by way of appeals and an application for recall.[8]
[5]Williams v Cameron DC Nelson CIV-2009-042-544, 26 May 2010.
[6]Williams v Cameron HC Nelson CIV-2010-422-222, 22 September 2010.
[7]Williams v Cameron DC Nelson, CIV-2009-042-544, 26 October 2012 at [47].
[8]Williams v Cameron DC Nelson CIV-2009-042-544, 15 April 2013 at [5]; Williams v Cameron [2013] NZHC 1794; Williams v Cameron [2016] NZHC 264 at [25]; Williams v Cameron [2016] NZCA 317 [CA appeal judgment]; and Williams v Cameron [2016] NZSC 119.
The present claim is a renewed effort by Mr Williams to challenge the District Court proceedings. Mr Williams has brought an action against the Attorney‑General based on various actions by counsel for the defendants in the District Court proceedings which “officers of the Court” ignored. He claims that this amounted to a breach of the principles of natural justice under s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Associate Judge Matthews granted the Attorney‑General’s application to strike out the proceeding.[9] In doing so, he relied on the fact that the issues raised had already been determined by Courts of competent jurisdiction. Mr Williams now seeks to appeal that decision to this Court.
[9]Williams v Attorney-General, above n 1, at [26], [31] and [35].
The Deputy Registrar considered that the extension of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Williams v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Williams v Attorney-General [2019] NZCA 348
Case: [2019] NZCA 348
Decision Date: 1 August 2019 at 10.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand was asked to review the Deputy Registrar's decision to grant Peter Anthony Williams an extension of three working days to file his appeal against the Attorney-General. Williams had filed a notice of appeal against an Associate Judge's decision to strike out his proceedings, which was out of time. The Attorney-General sought a review of the Deputy Registrar's decision to accept the late filing. This case has a long history stemming from the sale of Williams' business in 2004, which led to a claim against the accountants involved in the sale. The District Court determined that a settlement had been reached, and this was later upheld by the High Court. Williams has unsuccessfully attempted to challenge this decision through various appeals and an application for recall. The current appeal is a renewed effort to challenge the District Court proceedings on the basis that officers of the Court ignored actions by counsel for the defendants, amounting to a breach of natural justice principles.

The legal issues in this case revolved around whether the Deputy Registrar's decision to grant an extension of time to file the appeal was justified. The Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 allow the Deputy Registrar to extend the time for complying with any rule of the Court by up to five working days without consent. The Court had to assess the delay in the context of the wider procedural background of the matter, including the merits of the proposed appeal. The Court also had to consider whether the abuse of process in this case, which involved a collateral attack on decisions of Courts of competent jurisdiction, warranted an exception to the general principle that the power to grant or refuse an extension of time should not be used as a mechanism to dismiss seemingly weak appeals summarily.

The Court of Appeal found that the delay of three working days was not serious and would not cause prejudice to the respondent. However, the abuse of process in this case, which involved a collateral attack on decisions of Courts of competent jurisdiction, raised an exception to the general principle that the power to grant or refuse an extension of time should not be used as a mechanism to dismiss seemingly weak appeals summarily. The Court noted that the issues raised had already been considered and appealed extensively, and that the original dispute was settled more than a decade ago. The Court had already emphasised the need for Williams' litigation to be concluded, stating that "the interests of justice require that Mr Williams' unmeritorious litigation be brought to an end." The Court concluded that this was a rare case in which it could confidently say that there were no merits to the appeal, and therefore insufficient reason to grant an extension of time for filing the appeal. The appeal was now out of time and could no longer be accepted for filing.

The Court granted the application for review of the Deputy Registrar's decision, stating that Williams may make an application under r 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules for an extension of time if he wished to continue to pursue his appeal. The Court emphasised that this was a rare case in which it could confidently say that there were no merits to the appeal, and therefore insufficient reason to grant an extension of time for filing the appeal. The appeal was now out of time and could no longer be accepted for filing.

Orders