Wislang v Family Court at North Shore

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA353/2013
[2013] NZCA 439

BETWEEN

MILES ROGER WISLANG
Appellant

AND

THE FAMILY COURT AT NORTH SHORE
First Respondent

MURRAY IAIN VAN HOORN
Second Respondent

Counsel:	Appellant in Person D N Soper for First Respondent
Judgment (On the papers):	25 September 2013 at 10:00am
Reissued:	26 September 2013
Effective date of Judgment:	25 September 2013

JUDGMENT OF MILLER J
(Review of Registrar’s decision on security for costs)

The application for review of the Registrar’s decision on security for costs is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Wislang intends to appeal a judgment of Venning J awarding costs on an unsuccessful application for judicial review. The Registrar has fixed security at $5,880 in accordance with the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.
As the Registrar noted in her decision, there is no suggestion of impecuniosity. Rather, Mr Wislang’s primary submission is that his appeal is certain to succeed. That is not self-evidently correct, and it does not justify a waiver.
Mr Wislang also suggests that the amount of security is excessive, for the points on appeal are short and simple and costs are very likely to be considerably less than the amount set. I do not agree. Security reflects not only the amount of time required for hearing but also the costs of preparation.
The application for review is dismissed. Mr Wislang must pay security within 20 working days of the date of this judgment.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for First Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Miles Roger Wislang, the appellant, appealed against a decision of the Family Court at North Shore, with Murray Iain Van Hoorn, the second respondent, also involved in the case. The dispute arose from an unsuccessful application for judicial review, where costs were awarded. The Registrar had fixed the security for costs at $5,880, in line with the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. The appellant argued for a waiver of security on the basis that his appeal was likely to succeed and that the amount was excessive, given the simplicity of the points on appeal.

The legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's appeal was likely to succeed, and if so, whether this justified a waiver of the security for costs. The court considered the appellant's submission that the appeal was certain to succeed, but noted that this was not self-evidently correct. The court also considered the appellant's argument that the amount of security was excessive, but noted that the amount reflected not only the time required for the hearing but also the costs of preparation.

The court dismissed the application for review, holding that the appellant's appeal was not certain to succeed, and that the amount of security was not excessive. The court emphasised that security reflected not only the amount of time required for the hearing but also the costs of preparation. The appellant was required to pay the security within 20 working days of the date of the judgment.

The final orders of the court were that the application for review of the Registrar's decision on security for costs was dismissed, and the appellant was required to pay the security within 20 working days of the date of the judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established