Wyatt v Real Estate Agents Authority - [2013] NZCA 37

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA701/2012
[2013] NZCA 37

BETWEEN GREGORY JOHN WYATT
Appellant

AND THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY
First Respondent

AND BARFOOT & THOMPSON LIMITED
Second Respondent

Counsel: Appellant in person
L J Clancy for First Respondent
R B Hern and J E Tomlinson for Second Respondent

Judgment: 1 March 2013 at 3.30 pm

(On the papers)

JUDGMENT OF STEVENS J – REVIEW OF REGISTRAR’S DECISION RE REFUND OF FILING FEE AND WAIVER OF SETTING DOWN FEE

The application to review the decision of the Registrar declining to refund the filing fee of $1,087.50 and to waive the setting down fee of $2,658.40 is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

This is an application for review of the Registrar’s decision on an application to refund the filing fee of $1,087.50 and to waive the payment of the setting down fee of $2,658.40. It arises from an appeal to this Court by the applicant Gregory John Wyatt against a judgment of Woodhouse J in the High Court.[1] The application to the Registrar was made under regs 5 and 8 of the Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001. I have personally considered the application to review the Registrar’s decision and the material provided by Mr Wyatt under s 100B of the Judicature Act 1908.

Registrar’s decision

[1]Wyatt v The Real Estate Agents Authority [2012] NZHC 2550.

The application to the Registrar was made on the ground that the appeal is a matter of genuine public interest.
The Registrar concluded on the basis of the material supplied that “there is not a question of law that is of significant interest to the public or to a substantial section of the public, rather the judgment relates to a particular set of facts relating only to you”.

The grounds of review

Mr Wyatt challenges the Registrar’s conclusion. He contends that the judgment “does not relate to a particular set of facts relating only to me and that it is a decision of general application affecting nearly all real estate transactions”. Mr Wyatt refers to parts of the High Court judgment[2] which he says support this view.

Discussion

[2] Particularly the material at [54]–[60].

There is no suggestion in the grounds for review that any of the criteria in reg 5(3) (legal aid or financial hardship) are satisfied. Nor could there be. The property the sale of which gave rise to the litigation was owned by Mr Wyatt’s family trust, through a company, and was sold for $1,350,000. Further, Mr Wyatt has not claimed that the appeal is unlikely to be continued “unless the fee is waived”.[3]
[3] Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001, reg 5(2)(b)(ii).
The only question is whether any of the criteria in reg 5(4) applies. Mr Wyatt has focussed on reg 5(4)(b), namely, that the proceeding raises issues of significant interest to the public or a significant section of the public.
I am satisfied that the Registrar was correct to conclude that Mr Wyatt had not established…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wyatt v Real Estate Agents Authority and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NZCA 37
Decision Date: 1 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an application by Gregory John Wyatt, who sought to challenge the Registrar's decision not to refund his filing fee of $1,087.50 or waive the setting down fee of $2,658.40. This decision stemmed from an appeal against a High Court judgment in relation to a dispute with the Real Estate Agents Authority and Barfoot & Thompson Limited. The central issue before the court was whether the appeal raised questions of significant public interest, which would warrant a refund or waiver of fees under the Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001. Wyatt argued that the judgment's implications extended beyond his individual case to affect nearly all real estate transactions, thus meriting public interest.

The court examined whether the appeal met the criteria under regulation 5(4) for a refund or waiver, specifically focusing on whether it raised issues of significant interest to the public. The court noted that the appeal's core issue was whether the use of a specific form in a particular real estate transaction constituted unsatisfactory conduct or misconduct, which was evaluated based on the unique facts of Wyatt's case. Despite references in the High Court judgment to general considerations, the court found that the judgment was fundamentally tied to the specific circumstances of Wyatt's property sale. Therefore, the appeal did not raise issues of significant public interest beyond the particular set of facts in Wyatt's case.

Based on this reasoning, the court upheld the Registrar's decision. The application to review the decision was dismissed, and Wyatt was required to pay the setting down fee of $2,658.40 to the Registrar if he wished to reapply for a hearing date.

Orders