| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND |
| CA163/2012 [2012] NZCA 192 |
| BETWEEN BENJAMIN MORLAND EASTON |
| AND GOVERNOR-GENERAL |
| Counsel: Appellant in Person |
| Judgment (on the papers): 15 May 2012 |
JUDGMENT OF WILD J:
REVIEW OF DEPUTY REGISTRAR’S DECISION
Pursuant to r 7(2) Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, the appellant seeks a review of Deputy Registrar Leslie’s decision of 20 March declining the appellant’s application for a waiver of fees in respect of this appeal.
The appellant sought a waiver on the grounds that the proceeding concerns a matter of genuine public interest and the appeal is unlikely to be continued unless fees are waived (r 5(2)(b) Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001).
In her decision Deputy Registrar Leslie declined to waive fees on the grounds that Mallon J had struck out the relevant part of the appellant’s proceeding because it disclosed no reasonably arguably cause of action. Deputy Registrar Leslie took the view it is difficult to claim that there is public interest in an untenable proceeding.
I agree. In the relevant part of his Statement of Claim in the High Court, the appellant asserted that the Care of Children Act 2004 had not become law by a proper process, in particular because of an unresolved possible conflict with the provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
For reasons she explained in her judgment, Mallon J held that the appellant’s arguments were untenable and she struck out the appellant’s claim against the Governor-General.
So, as matters stand, Deputy Registrar Leslie was correct to treat the appellant’s claim against the Governor-General as hopeless. There cannot be any public interest in pursuing a hopeless case on appeal. Accordingly, while the appellant is entitled as of right to appeal, Deputy Registrar Leslie was correct not to waive the appeal fees.
Having reviewed Deputy Registrar Leslie’s decision, I uphold it.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington, for Respondent
- AGLC
- Easton v Governor-General [2012] NZCA 192
- Case
- [2012] NZCA 192
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the Deputy Registrar was correct in declining the appellant's application for a fee waiver, given that the High Court had already dismissed the appellant's claim as untenable. Wild J, reviewing the decision, found that the Deputy Registrar's refusal to waive the fees was justified because the High Court had struck out the relevant part of the appellant's proceeding, which meant the claim against the Governor-General was deemed hopeless. Wild J reasoned that there could be no public interest in pursuing a hopeless case, and consequently, upheld the Deputy Registrar's decision.
Wild J agreed with the Deputy Registrar's assessment that the appellant's arguments were untenable and that the claim lacked a reasonable arguable cause of action. As such, the appeal was considered futile, and the appellant was not entitled to a fee waiver under the circumstances. The court's decision was grounded in the principle that a fee waiver should not be granted if the case is hopeless, thereby affirming the Deputy Registrar's decision.
In summary, the Court of Appeal upheld the Deputy Registrar's decision, thereby denying the appellant's application for a waiver of appeal fees. The court found that the appellant's claim was untenable and that there was no public interest in continuing a hopeless appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.