Mailley v Shaw

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA332/2022
[2022] NZCA 638

BETWEEN	MARTIN MAILLEY Applicant
AND	ANTONY SHAW First Respondent
AND	NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY Second Respondent

Counsel:	Applicant in person D A Cowan and JEG San Diego for First Respondent T P Mullins, DAC Bullock and T N Sussman for Second Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	19 December 2022 at 3.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF MILLER J
(Review of Registrar’s Decision)

The application for review of the Registrar’s decision is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

This is an application for review of a Registrar’s decision to decline to waive security for costs.
The Registrar gave detailed reasons in a letter of 7 September 2022. I agree with and adopt those reasons.
Nothing in Mr Mailley’s submissions on review persuades me that she was wrong. In essence, this is a case in which the respondents should not be denied the protection of security for costs. The Supreme Court has already confirmed that the argument on which Mr Mailley’s application to dispense with security costs is based does not give rise to an issue of general or public importance.[1]
[1]Mailley v Shaw [2022] NZSC 93 at [5].
The application is declined.

Solicitors:
Ord Legal, Wellington for First Respondent
LeeSalmonLong, Auckland for Second Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mailley v Shaw, the applicant, Martin Mailley, sought a review of a Registrar’s decision to decline his application to waive security for costs. The first respondent, Antony Shaw, and the second respondent, the New Zealand Law Society, opposed the application. The matter was heard and determined by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The primary issue before the court was whether the Registrar's decision to decline the application to waive security for costs was correct. The court had to assess if the decision was legally sound and if the applicant had demonstrated that the case had any issue of general or public importance that warranted the waiver of security for costs.

The Court of Appeal found that the Registrar’s decision was well-reasoned and consistent with the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Mailley v Shaw, where it was determined that the argument put forward by Mr Mailley did not present an issue of general or public importance. The court emphasised that security for costs is a protective measure designed to ensure that respondents are not unduly burdened by the financial risks associated with defending litigation. In this case, the court agreed that the respondents should not be denied this protection. Consequently, the court found no basis to overturn the Registrar’s decision, thereby upholding the requirement for the applicant to provide security for costs.

In summary, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's review application, reaffirming the necessity of security for costs in this instance. The court did not find any error in the Registrar’s decision and confirmed that the case did not involve any issue of general or public importance warranting a waiver of security for costs. The application was declined, and the original decision stood.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established