Chesterfields Preschools Ltd v Cir

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 90/2009
[2009] NZSC 127
BETWEENCHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED
First Applicant
ANDDAVID JOHN HAMPTON
Second Applicant
ANDCHESTERFIELDS PARTNERSHIP
Third Applicant
ANDCHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS PARTNERSHIP
Fourth Applicant
ANDANOLBE ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Fifth Applicant

ANDTHE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Respondent

Court:Tipping, McGrath and Wilson JJ
Counsel:Applicants in person
M S R Palmer and E Aspey for Respondent

Judgment:8 December 2009

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay the respondent the sum of $3,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

REASONS
[1]       The applicants seek leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision of the Court of Appeal in which that Court, in its discretion, stayed the execution of orders for costs which the High Court had made against the respondent Commissioner in judicial review proceedings between the parties.
[2]       Leave to appeal to this Court should be refused because the applicants have not established that a grant of leave is necessary in the interests of justice.[1] The Court of Appeal’s decision was made in the particular context of the present case. No matter of general or public importance or of general commercial importance is involved. Nor is there any appearance of a miscarriage of justice as a result of the applicants being unable to enforce the costs orders made in their favour by the High Court, pending the Court of Appeal’s determination of the respondent’s substantive appeal.
[1]      Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003.
[3]       Furthermore, s 13(4) of the Supreme Court Act provides that this Court must not give leave to appeal from an order made by the Court of Appeal on an interlocutory application unless it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice. That has not been shown in this case. If anything, it would be unjust to the Commissioner to allow the costs orders against him to be enforced before his substantive appeal is determined.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chesterfields Preschools Limited and others sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand from an interlocutory decision of the Court of Appeal, which had stayed the execution of costs orders made by the High Court in judicial review proceedings. The Court of Appeal's decision to stay execution of the costs orders was made in the specific context of the case at hand and did not involve any matter of general or public importance. The applicants contended that the costs orders should be enforced pending the Court of Appeal's determination of the substantive appeal, but the Supreme Court found that it was not necessary to do so in the interests of justice, and that it would be unjust to the Commissioner to allow the costs orders to be enforced before his substantive appeal was determined.

The Supreme Court considered the statutory provisions of the Supreme Court Act 2003, particularly sections 13(1), 13(2) and 13(4). The Court found that the applicants had not established that a grant of leave to appeal was necessary in the interests of justice. The Court emphasised that it must not give leave to appeal from an order made by the Court of Appeal on an interlocutory application unless it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice. The Court concluded that the Court of Appeal’s decision was appropriate in the circumstances, and that there was no miscarriage of justice as a result of the applicants being unable to enforce the costs orders made in their favour by the High Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed the applicants' application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicants, jointly and severally, to pay the Commissioner the sum of $3,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The Court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that a grant of leave was necessary in the interests of justice, and that it would be unjust to the Commissioner to allow the costs orders to be enforced before his substantive appeal was determined. The Court also considered the statutory provisions of the Supreme Court Act 2003, and found that the Court of Appeal’s decision was appropriate in the circumstances.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established