Young v Land Transport Safety Authority

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 33/2005 [2005] NZSC 51

BETWEEN DAVID JOHN YOUNG Applicant

ANDLAND TRANSPORT SAFETY AUTHORITY
Respondent

Court: Blanchard J and McGrath J Counsel: Applicant in Person
F E Guy and A J Thompson for Respondent

Judgment: 27 July 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

[1] After a trial in the summary jurisdiction of the District Court at Christchurch the applicant was convicted on a charge that being a taxi driver he failed to conduct himself in an orderly manner contrary to a rule in the third schedule to the Transport Services Licensing Act 1989. His general appeal to the High Court against his conviction having been dismissed, the applicant was refused leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal both by the High Court and later by the Court of Appeal itself.

[2] Recognising that he cannot appeal to this Court against the Court of Appeal’s refusal of leave, as that was not a decision “on an appeal” in terms of s 144A(1)(c) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, the applicant now seeks to appeal directly from the High Court’s determination on the general appeal in reliance upon s 144A(1)(b). In accordance with s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 and s 144A(2), however,

YOUNG V LAND TRANSPORT SAFETY AUTHORITY SC 33/2005 [27 July 2005]

this Court may not permit a direct appeal unless satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that justify such an appeal.

[3] We have considered the written submissions filed and do not find it necessary to direct an oral hearing. There are no grounds in terms of s 14 for an appeal to be brought directly from the High Court in this case. There are no exceptional circumstances. No significant points of law are involved. The case involves only questions of fact which have been fully reviewed below.

[4] Furthermore, in circumstances in which the Court of Appeal has refused leave for an appeal to that Court and there is a jurisdictional bar preventing the decision of the Court of Appeal declining leave from being further appealed, this Court will rarely allow that bar to be avoided by resort to a direct appeal. Other than in extraordinary circumstances, which do not exist in the present case, an attempt to bring a direct appeal in such circumstances will be regarded as an abuse. A similar point was made in this Court’s judgment in Burke v The Western Bay of Plenty District Council [2005] NZSC 46.

[5] The respondent has sought costs but, as the jurisdictional question has not previously been the subject of a ruling from the Court, we do not make any order.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Young v Land Transport Safety Authority, David John Young, a taxi driver, sought leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal which had refused him leave to appeal to that Court. The applicant had previously been convicted by the District Court of failing to conduct himself in an orderly manner while operating as a taxi driver. The High Court had dismissed his appeal against this conviction, and the Court of Appeal had subsequently refused him leave to appeal to it. The applicant argued that he should be allowed to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, relying on section 144A(1)(b) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. The Court considered the matter without the need for an oral hearing. The Court found that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. It was held that there were no significant points of law involved and that the case involved only questions of fact that had been fully reviewed by the Court of Appeal. The Court also noted that it would rarely allow a direct appeal where the Court of Appeal had already refused leave and there was a jurisdictional bar preventing further appeal. The Court declined to award costs to the respondent as the jurisdictional question had not previously been ruled upon by the Court.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the applicant could appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court's determination on his general appeal, in circumstances where the Court of Appeal had refused him leave to appeal to it. The Court found that there were no exceptional circumstances that justified a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court emphasised that the case involved only questions of fact which had been fully reviewed by the Court of Appeal, and that there were no significant points of law involved. The Court also noted that it would rarely allow a direct appeal where the Court of Appeal had already refused leave and there was a jurisdictional bar preventing further appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the applicant was not entitled to appeal directly to it from the High Court's determination on his general appeal. The Court found that there were no exceptional circumstances that justified such an appeal. The Court held that the case involved only questions of fact which had been fully reviewed by the Court of Appeal, and that there were no significant points of law involved. The Court also noted that it would rarely allow a direct appeal where the Court of Appeal had already refused leave and there was a jurisdictional bar preventing further appeal. The Court declined to award costs to the respondent as the jurisdictional question had not previously been ruled upon by the Court.

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and made no order for costs. The Court's decision was based on the fact that there were no exceptional circumstances that justified a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, and that the case involved only questions of fact which had been fully reviewed by the Court of Appeal. The Court also noted that it would rarely allow a direct appeal where the Court of Appeal had already refused leave and there was a jurisdictional bar preventing further appeal. The Court's decision underscores the importance of following the correct appellate process and the limited circumstances in which a direct appeal to the Supreme Court may be permitted.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established