John Anthony Edwards v Wellington Regional Council

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 67/2011
[2011] NZSC 73

BETWEEN JOHN ANTHONY EDWARDS
Applicant

AND WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL
Respondent

Court: Elias CJ, Blanchard and McGrath JJ

Counsel: Applicant in Person
J W Tizard for Respondent

Judgment: 5 July 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. The applicant must pay costs of $2500 to the respondent.

REASONS

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of a Judge of the Court of Appeal upholding the decision of the Acting Registrar of that Court[1] fixing security for costs on an appeal from the High Court.[2] The underlying appeal is against an interlocutory decision of a High Court Judge staying the proceedings until a further statement of claim with adequate pleadings is submitted and the leave of a Judge to file it is granted.[3]
[1]Edwards v Wellington Regional Council [2011] NZCA 260.
[2]Edwards v Wellington Regional Council HC Wellington CIV-2010-485-2192, 28 March 2011.
[3]Edwards v Wellington Regional Council HC Wellington CIV-2010-485-2192, 11 March 2011.
Subsequently the applicant filed a supplementary notice in which he seeks leave to appeal directly against the judgment of the High Court mentioned and another judgment, in a separate proceeding issued by the applicant, traversing the same ground.
The effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal Judges upholding the security for costs order was that security for costs of $5560 had to be paid within 20 working days of the judgment. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is said to be an expansion of, and to provide support for, the High Court judgment. There are also many criticisms of the policy and decisions of the respondent in relation to the lakes that form part of the Wellington region water supply. There is, however, no attempt to challenge the principles on which security for costs orders are based and the application of those principles by the Court of Appeal. In those circumstances, the application in relation to the Court of Appeal judgment cannot succeed and is dismissed.
In relation to the other matters, it is sufficient to say that s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 directs the Court not to give leave to appeal directly against decisions of a court other than the Court of Appeal unless satisfied there are exceptional circumstances. There is no attempt in the applicant’s submissions to point to such circumstances and we are satisfied that there are none. The application is accordingly also dismissed in respect of the decisions of the High Court as well as that of the Court of Appeal.

Solicitors:
Oakley Moran, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of John Anthony Edwards v Wellington Regional Council was heard by Elias CJ, Blanchard and McGrath JJ. The applicant, John Anthony Edwards, sought leave to appeal against the decision of the Wellington Regional Council, which had been upheld by a Judge of the Court of Appeal. This appeal was in relation to the fixing of security for costs on an appeal from the High Court, as well as an interlocutory decision of a High Court Judge to stay the proceedings until a further statement of claim with adequate pleadings was submitted. The applicant's supplementary notice sought leave to appeal directly against the judgment of the High Court and another judgment in a separate proceeding.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had grounds to appeal the decisions of both the Court of Appeal and the High Court. The Court of Appeal had upheld the security for costs order, requiring the applicant to pay $5560 within 20 working days of the judgment. The applicant's criticisms of the respondent's policy and decisions regarding the Wellington region water supply did not challenge the principles on which security for costs orders are based or the application of those principles by the Court of Appeal. The Court found that the applicant had not provided any exceptional circumstances that would warrant an appeal against the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the High Court.

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, stating that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant such an appeal. The Court emphasised that the applicant had not attempted to challenge the principles on which security for costs orders are based, nor had he pointed to any exceptional circumstances in his submissions. The applicant was ordered to pay costs of $2500 to the respondent.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established