Slavich v Wellington District Court

[2021] NZHC 3361

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2021-485-000648

[2021] NZHC 3361

IN THE MATTER OF

AND

Section 8 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for judicial review

BETWEEN

JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH

Plaintiff

AND

WELLINGTON DISTRICT COURT

First Respondent

DAVID PARKER

Second Respondent

Hearing:	[On the Papers]
Appearances:	J K Slavich (Self-represented Plaintiff)
Judgment:	9 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J

[Review of decision declining fee waiver]

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 December 2021 at 11.00 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

To:    J K Slavich (Plaintiff), Auckland

SLAVICH v WELLINGTON DISTRICT COURT [2021] NZHC 3361 [9 December 2021]

[1]                 Mr Slavich applies to review the decision of a Court Registrar declining his application for a fee waiver.

The application

[2]                 This proceeding was filed on 30 July 2021. Initially, it was rejected by the Registry because Mr Slavich was subject to an order dated 27 March 2013 prohibiting him from instituting proceedings either on his own behalf or in any fiduciary or representative capacity (s 88B order).1

[3]                 By judgment dated 10 November 2021, Mallon J allowed Mr Slavich’s application for review of that decision.2 The Judge did so on the basis that the s 88B order should not be treated as being in effect for the purposes of Mr Slavich’s intended proceedings purported to be filed on 30 July 2021.

[4]                 Mr Slavich applied for a waiver of fees when he filed his proceeding. He filled out the standard application form for a fee waiver. He ticked the box on the form which provides:

This fee relates to a proceeding that concerns a matter of genuine public interest, and it will not move forward unless this fee is paid.

[5]                 Mr Slavich also filled out the section of the form asking, “Will the proceeding clarify a ‘question of law’?”.

[6]                 He also ticked a box stating that he would continue with the proceeding anyway if the application for the fee to be waived was refused.

Was the Registrar correct to decline the application for a fee waiver?

[7]                 The power of a Registrar to waive fees is found in reg 18 of the High Court Fees Regulations 2013. That regulation provides:

1      Attorney-General v Slavich [2013] NZHC 627. The order was made pursuant to s 88B of the Judicature Act 1908.

2       Re A review of the Registrar’s decision (Slavich) [2021] NZHC 3030.

18       Power to waive fees

(1)A person otherwise responsible for the payment of a fee required in connection with a proceeding or an intended proceeding may apply to a Registrar for a waiver of the fee.

(2)The Registrar may waive the fee payable by the person if satisfied,—

(a)on the basis of one of the criteria specified in regulation 19, that the person is unable to pay the fee; or

(b)that the proceeding,—

(i)on the basis of one of the criteria specified in regulation 20, concerns a matter of genuine public interest; and

(ii)is unlikely to be commenced or continued unless the fee is waived.

(3)An application under subclause (1) must be made in a form approved for the purpose by the chief executive of the Ministry of Justice unless, in a particular case, the Registrar considers that an application in that form is not necessary.

[8]                 Mr Slavich’s application for a fee waiver was based on reg 18(2)(b). The Registrar had to be satisfied that the proceeding was a matter of genuine public interest and it is unlikely to be commenced or continued unless the fee is waived.

[9]                 On its face, there is a slight inconsistency in the fee waiver form in that     Mr Slavich has ticked the box that says the proceeding concerns a matter of genuine public interest and it will not move forward unless the fee is paid. However, later in the form, he has clearly indicated that the proceeding would start or continue anyway if the fee was not waived.

[10]             I consider the answer to the latter question is controlling. That question clearly asks what will happen if the fee is not waived. There is no ambiguity in Mr Slavich’s answer. He is clear that the proceeding will continue.

[11]             On that basis, the criteria in reg 18(2)(b)(ii) was not met. The Registrar was correct to decline the application for a fee waiver.

[12]             Although not central to my decision, I note doubt about whether the proceeding is a matter of genuine public interest. The claim appears to relate to decisions made

in the District Court that a charging document not be accepted for filing, and a subsequent decision refusing a recall application.

[13]             On the face of the statement of claim, I cannot discern a matter of genuine public interest  that  meets  the  criteria  specified  in  reg 20  of  the  High Court  Fees Regulations.

Result

[14]The application for review is declined.

Edwards J