Williams v Attorney-General
[2019] NZCA 348
•1 August 2019 at 10.00 am
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA |
| CA209/2019 [2019] NZCA 348 |
| BETWEEN | PETER ANTHONY WILLIAMS |
| AND | ATTORNEY-GENERAL |
| Counsel: | Applicant in person |
Judgment: | 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 time to file the appeal was justified in the circumstances as the appeal was only filed three working days late, which was by no means a serious delay.
Application for review
The Attorney-General submits that the time for filing should not have been extended because the proposed appeal is without merit.
Mr Williams explains that the delay was due to a misunderstanding of the filing requirements. He maintains the appeal has merit, arguing that serious breaches have been carried out by counsel involved in the various proceedings up until this point.
Discussion
The Deputy Registrar’s power under r 5A(1)(c)(ii) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 to extend the time for complying with any rule of the Court by up to five working days without consent supports administrative efficiency in the business of this Court.[10] On most occasions, the Deputy Registrar will only take into account delay when extending the time for filing an appeal. However, Mr William’s appeal is an unusual case in that it constitutes a collateral attack on decisions of Courts of competent jurisdiction and is accordingly a clear abuse of process.
[10]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 64(1)(b).
The delay of three working days was not serious and prima facie would not cause prejudice to the respondent but this delay must be assessed against the wider procedural background of this matter, including the merits of the proposed appeal.[11] Generally, the power to grant or refuse an extension of time should not be used as a mechanism to dismiss seemingly weak appeals summarily.[12] However, the abuse of process in this case raises an exception to this proposition. The issues raised have already been considered and appealed extensively. The original dispute was settled more than a decade ago and this Court has already emphasised the need for Mr Williams’ litigation be concluded,[13] saying that “the interests of justice require that Mr Williams’ unmeritorious litigation be brought to an end”.[14]
[11]Guidance is obtained from the Supreme Court’s decision in Almond v Read [2017] NZSC 80, [2017] 1 NZLR 801 at [35]–[40] which sets out the principles guiding applications for extensions of time.
[12]At [39(c)].
[13]CA appeal judgment, above n 8, at [7].
[14]At [9].
This is a rare case in that it can confidently be said there are no merits to the appeal and therefore insufficient reason to grant an extension of time for filing the appeal.
The appeal is now out of time and can no longer be accepted for filing.[15]
Result
[15]Mr Williams may make an application under r 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules for an extension of time if he wishes to continue to pursue his appeal.
The application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision granting the applicant an extension of three working days to file his appeal is granted.
Solicitors:
O’Donoghue Webber, Nelson for Respondent
2
6
0