Legal Research
Cases
Reekie v Attorney-General

Reekie v Attorney-General

Case [2013] NZSC 74 25 July 2013

Appeal

Security for Costs

Jurisdiction

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 47/2013
[2013] NZSC 74

BETWEEN	NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE Applicant
AND	HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR NEW ZEALAND First Respondent
AND	HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE QUEEN Second Respondent
AND	THE DISTRICT COURT AT WAITAKERE Third Respondent

Court:	McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person J Foster for Respondents
Judgment:	25 July 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved ground is:

Whether a waiver of security for costs should have been granted?

____________________________________________________________________

The applicant, Mr Reekie, is acting for himself. The Registrar is to appoint counsel to assist the Court.
Submissions from counsel assisting the Court should be filed at the same time as Mr Reekie’s submissions.

Solicitors:
Crown Law for Respondents

Details

AGLC: Reekie v Attorney-General [2013] NZSC 74
Case: [2013] NZSC 74
Decision Date: 25 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Mr. Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie filed an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the District Court at Waitakere. The primary issue in contention was whether the District Court had correctly refused to waive security for costs, which Mr. Reekie sought in order to proceed with his legal action. The matter was significant as it touched upon the applicant's ability to pursue a legal claim without the financial barrier imposed by the requirement of providing security for costs.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court involved interpreting the relevant statutory provisions concerning security for costs and the discretion of the court to waive such security. The court had to determine whether the District Court exercised its discretion appropriately and whether the decision was in accordance with the principles of fairness and justice. The crux of the matter was to assess if the District Court had a sufficient basis to deny Mr. Reekie's request for a waiver of security for costs.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, granted leave to appeal and approved the ground of appeal concerning the waiver of security for costs. The Court acknowledged that the issue of security for costs is a significant one and warrants careful consideration. The Court determined that the refusal of the District Court to waive the security for costs was a matter that merited review by the Supreme Court, hence the decision to grant leave to appeal. The Court also noted that the Registrar should appoint counsel to assist in the proceedings.

Orders