Meek v Health and Disability Commissioner

[2016] NZCA 426

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA280/2016
[2016] NZCA 426

BETWEEN	STUART JAMES MEEK Appellant
AND	HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER Respondent

Counsel:

Appellant in person
R E Schmidt-McCleave for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

9 September 2016 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF FRENCH J
(Application for extension of time to seek dispensation of security for costs)

AThe application for an extension of time in which to seek dispensation of security for costs is declined.

BThe appellant must pay security for costs in the sum of $6,600 within five working days.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

1. Mr Meek has filed an appeal against a decision of Clifford J in the High Court at Wellington.[1]

   [1]Meek v Health and Disability Commissioner [2016] NZHC 1205.

2. Security for costs of the appeal was fixed at $6,600.00.

3. Mr Meek applied for security for costs to be dispensed with under r 35(6)(c) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 on the ground he is impecunious.  Rule 35(7)(a) requires that such an application be made within 20 working days after the notice of appeal is filed.  Mr Meek’s notice of appeal was filed on 20 June 2016, which meant the deadline for filing his application for dispensation was 18 July 2016.  He did not, however, file the application until 28 July 2016.

4. The failure to comply with the time requirement meant the Registrar did not have jurisdiction to consider the application for dispensation.  Under the Rules, only a Judge has the power to grant extensions of time and accordingly the matter has been referred to me.[2]

Analysis

[2]Court of Appeal (Civil) Appeal Rules 2005, r 5(2).

1. The period of delay was not long.  It was caused by the fact that Mr Meek, who is representing himself, was unware of the time requirement.  It has not prejudiced the respondent.

2. Those factors favour granting an extension of time.  However, in my view, they are outweighed by the fact the appeal itself lacks merit.  It is not an appeal that a solvent appellant would reasonably wish to pursue and therefore little purpose would be served in granting an extension of time for a dispensation application that is doomed to fail.  That is so even if Mr Meek were to provide financial information showing he is impecunious, which to date he has failed to do.

3. The decision under appeal was a judicial review of the respondent’s handling of various complaints made to it by Mr Meek regarding Capital & Coast District Health Board’s Mental Health Services.  The Judge stated that two aspects of the approach taken by the respondent were of some concern.[3]  However, they were not matters that warranted any formal declarations or orders for relief.[4]

   [3]Meek v Health and Disability Commissioner, above n 1, at [65]–[74].

   [4]At [75].

4. Most of the grounds of appeal advanced by Mr Meek detail matters beyond the proper scope of judicial review.  Others overlook the scheme of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994.  He also seeks remedies (such as payment of compensation and the laying of criminal charges) that either this Court has no power to grant or that are not tenable.

5. The application for an extension of time is accordingly declined.  Mr Meek must pay security for costs in the sum of $6,600 within five working days.

Solicitors:
Health and Disability Commissioner, Wellington for Respondent