S v Chief Executive of Ministry of Social Development

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 22A OF THE ADOPTION ACT 1955, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC24/2013
[2013] NZSC 54

BETWEEN	S (SC24/2013) Applicant
AND	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ and William Young J
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	10 June 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of Stevens J in the Court of Appeal dismissing an application for review of the Registrar’s decision not to waive payment for security for costs on an appeal to the Court of Appeal.[1]
[1]S v H [2013] NZCA 21.
The applicant is the appellant in two appeals before the High Court in which she challenges decisions made by the Family Court of 5 October 2011 and 25 November 2011. She applied to adduce further evidence on appeal, an application which Williams J dismissed.[2] She then appealed to the Court of Appeal against that judgment. The Registrar directed that she pay $5,880 as security for costs. The applicant applied to the Registrar to have the security dispensed with under Rule 35(6)(c) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. The Registrar declined the application and this decision was upheld by Stevens J.
[2]S v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2012] NZHC 1451.
In his judgment, Stevens J noted that the only point in favour of the applicant was her financial position which he accepted was “not strong”.[3] He regarded the appeal against the decision of Williams J as being “of doubtful merit”.[4] In light of this, he saw no reason why the applicant should not provide security for costs.
[3]S, above n 1, at [11].
[4]At [12].
We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the applicant. In very large measure they challenge the substantive Family Court judgments (and what preceded them). They do not engage in any meaningful way with the reasons given by Williams J for refusing to allow her to call further evidence.
In all the circumstances, we are satisfied that the issues she wishes to raise do not warrant the grant of leave to appeal and we see no reason to require the respondent to file submissions.
Accordingly the application is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the applicant, S, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of Stevens J in the Court of Appeal, which had dismissed an application for review of the Registrar’s decision not to waive payment for security for costs on an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The applicant had previously challenged decisions made by the Family Court in two separate appeals before the High Court and sought to adduce further evidence on appeal. The Registrar directed that she pay $5,880 as security for costs, a decision which was upheld by Stevens J. The applicant argued that the only point in favour of her was her financial position, which Stevens J acknowledged was not strong, and that the appeal against the decision of Williams J was of doubtful merit.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's application for leave to appeal should be granted and whether the Registrar's decision not to waive payment for security for costs was appropriate. The court had to determine if the issues raised by the applicant warranted the grant of leave to appeal and whether the applicant's submissions meaningfully engaged with the reasons given by Williams J for refusing to allow her to call further evidence.

The court carefully considered the submissions made by the applicant. It found that the applicant’s arguments largely challenged the substantive Family Court judgments and did not meaningfully engage with the reasons given by Williams J for refusing to allow her to call further evidence. The court was satisfied that the issues the applicant wished to raise did not warrant the grant of leave to appeal, and therefore dismissed the application. The court found no reason to require the respondent to file submissions.

In conclusion, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established