Dunstan v Riddell

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 29/2022
[2022] NZSC 61

BETWEEN	TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN Applicant
AND	CHRISTINA MARGARET RIDDELL Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person Respondent in person
Judgment:	17 May 2022

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

We have treated the notice of appeal in this matter as an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing an application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision.[1] The focus of the notice of appeal is not entirely clear but the applicant says in the submissions in support of the application that leave should be granted to allow her to seek to overturn the Court of Appeal’s enforcement of orders for security for costs in these proceedings.
[1]Dunstan v Riddell [2022] NZCA 88 (Brown J).
In dismissing the application for review, Brown J upheld the Deputy Registrar’s decision to decline to accept for filing the applicant’s documents “to have the Court of Appeal overturn the requirement for a security deposit”.[2] The Deputy Registrar declined to accept the documents because they did not relate to active appeals. The appeals were not active because both of the relevant appeals had been deemed abandoned pursuant to r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.
[2]At [1].
Applying r 43, Brown J concluded that there was no jurisdiction to entertain the applications in relation to security for costs because there had been no application to extend the three month period in r 43(1) within the time period specified in r 43(3) and (4). If the applicant wanted to pursue these appeals, the Court said she would need to apply for leave to file new appeals under r 29A.
The applicant’s submissions raise issues about her ability to pursue her appeal in the face of an order for security for costs. That submission does not engage with the reason the Court of Appeal dismissed her application. The judgment of the Court of Appeal reflects a straightforward application of r 43 to these facts. No question of general or public importance accordingly arises from the proposed appeal and nor is there any appearance of a miscarriage of justice.[3]
[3]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(a) and (b); and Junior Farms Ltd v Hampton Securities Ltd (in liq) [2006] NZSC 60, (2006) 18 PRNZ 369.
The application for leave to appeal and the associated submissions raise a number of other matters. For example, urgent interim orders are sought staying Family Court proceedings. We have considered these other matters but none meet the criteria for leave to appeal.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the applicant, Tanya Felicity Dunstan, sought leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss her application for review of a Deputy Registrar’s decision. The Court of Appeal had enforced orders for security for costs in the proceedings against the respondent, Christina Margaret Riddell. The applicant's primary contention was that she should be allowed to overturn the Court of Appeal’s enforcement of the security for costs orders. The Court of Appeal had dismissed the applicant's application on the basis that the appeals in question had been deemed abandoned under rule 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, and there was no jurisdiction to entertain the applications in relation to security for costs because no application to extend the three-month period specified in the rules had been made within the time period.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision. This involved determining if there was a question of general or public importance or an appearance of a miscarriage of justice that warranted the granting of leave to appeal. The Court considered whether the applicant's concerns about the security for costs orders engaged with the reasoning of the Court of Appeal, which had straightforwardly applied rule 43 to the facts of the case. The Court further considered other matters raised in the application for leave to appeal, such as requests for urgent interim orders staying Family Court proceedings, but found that these did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, concluding that there was no question of general or public importance arising from the proposed appeal and no appearance of a miscarriage of justice. The Court held that the Court of Appeal’s application of rule 43 to the facts was straightforward and did not warrant further review. The applicant was also ordered to pay the respondent's costs of $2,500. The Court did not find merit in any other matters raised in the application for leave to appeal, leading to the dismissal of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established