Cullum v Barfoot

[2020] NZHC 3507

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-1379

[2020] NZHC 3507

BETWEEN

KATE CULLUM

Appellant

AND

KIRI BARFOOT

Respondent

On the papers:	At Auckland
Judgment:	22 December 2020

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

[Application for leave to appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 December 2020 at 3.30 pm pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

CULLUM v BARFOOT [2020] NZHC 3507 [22 December 2020]

[1]    On 9 June 2020 I dismissed an application for leave to appeal brought  by  Ms Cullum1 in respect of a decision of the District Court dismissing her appeal against a decision of the Disputes Tribunal (“the Disputes Tribunal matter”).

[2]    On 22 October 2020 I dismissed an application for leave to appeal brought by Ms Cullum2 in respect of a decision of the District Court addressing three decisions of the Tenancy Tribunal (“the Tenancy Tribunal matter”).3

[3]    Ms Cullum has attempted to challenge my decisions, first in the Supreme Court and subsequently in the Court of Appeal. In the Court of Appeal Collins J dismissed Ms Cullum’s application for review of two decisions of a Deputy Registrar declining to accept for filing notices of appeal as well as an application for a stay.4

[4]    Justice Collins noted that Ms Cullum had no right to further appeal the Disputes Tribunal decision beyond the District Court,5 and informed Ms Cullum that if she wished to pursue her appeal in respect of the Tenancy Tribunal matter she would require leave from the High Court pursuant to s 120 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.6

[5]    Ms Cullum has now applied for leave to appeal both of my decisions to the Court of Appeal.

Discussion

[6]    I commence with my analysis of Ms Cullum’s application with regard to the Disputes Tribunal matter. As Collins J has already advised Ms Cullum, she has no ability to appeal that decision any further. As a result, and leaving aside the merits of the application and whether it is out of time, there can be no basis to grant leave to appeal and the application must therefore be dismissed.

1      Cullum v Gordon [2020] NZHC 1261.

2      Cullum v Barfoot [2020] NZHC 2777.

3      Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Cullum [2020] NZDC 12161

4      Cullum v Barfoot [2020] NZCA 624.

5 At [8].

6      At [7] and [11].

[7]    In relation to the Tenancy Tribunal matter, pursuant to s 120(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act this Court:

May grant leave … if, in its opinion, the appeal involves a question of law that, because of its general or public importance or for any other reasons, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.

[8]    As I dismissed Ms Cullum’s application for leave to appeal the District Court decision on the basis it was an abuse of process I cannot see on what basis the decision involves a question of law, let alone one that because of its general or public importance or for any other reasons ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision. On that decision too, leave to appeal must be declined.

Decision

[9]The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

Powell J