MUSSON v MINISTRY OF FISHERIES SC 55/2011
The application for leave was dismissed because it was filed out of time without any justification for an extension and because the applicant failed to demonstrate any of the s13 criteria or exceptional circumstances required for a direct appeal from the High Court; furthermore no arguable legal issues of sufficient...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 55/2011
- Parties
- Applicant: Anthony Phillip Musson; Respondent: Ministry of Fisheries
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 27 June 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court (direct Appeal From High Court) / Leave Application Filed (out of Time) and Dismissed
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed; costs awarded to respondent
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Statutory Time Limits, Quota Management System, Levies and Penalties
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Anthony Phillip Musson
Applicant
Ministry of Fisheries
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court (direct Appeal From High Court) / Leave Application Filed (out of Time) and Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal to the Supreme Court should be granted
- 2 Whether the application was filed within time or justified an extension
- 3 Whether exceptional circumstances existed to permit a direct appeal from the High Court
Ratio Decidendi
The application for leave was dismissed because it was filed out of time without any justification for an extension and because the applicant failed to demonstrate any of the s13 criteria or exceptional circumstances required for a direct appeal from the High Court; furthermore no arguable legal issues of sufficient importance were identified.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; costs awarded to respondent
Orders
- Leave to appeal dismissed.
- Applicant to pay respondent costs of $1,500 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
MUSSON v MINISTRY OF FISHERIES SC 55/2011 27 June 2011IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 55/2011[2011] NZSC 69BETWEEN ANTHONY PHILLIP MUSSONApplicantAND MINISTRY OF FISHERIESRespondentCourt: Tipping, McGrath and William Young JJCounsel: Applicant in personA Scott-Howman for RespondentJudgment: 27 June 2011JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.B The applicant must pay the respondent costs in the sum of $1,500 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.REASONS[1] Mr Musson seeks leave to appeal directly to this Court from a decision of the High Court given on 6 April 2011.1 His application was filed on 17 May 2011 and is therefore filed out of time. No reasons have been given to justify an extension of time.[2] Leaving that point aside, the applicant has not established any of the criteria for the grant of leave as set out in s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003. Furthermore, he has not established that there are exceptional circumstances justifying bringing this appeal directly from the High Court to this Court.1 Musson v Ministry of Fisheries HC Invercargill CIV-2011-425-43, 6 April 2011.[3] Judgment was entered against the applicant in favour of the respondent in the District Court on 15 October 2010 for the sum of $4502.18.2 The judgment was in respect of unpaid levies and penalties imposed on the applicant pursuant to the Quota Management System established by the Fisheries Act 1996. The applicant appealed to the High Court and his appeal was dismissed on 6 April 2011.[4] It is difficult to derive from the submissions filed by the applicant on what points, whether of law or otherwise, he seeks leave to appeal to this Court. Theapplicant's submissions seem to be concerned more with his general antipathytowards the Ministry of Fisheries and various other parties that he names. In short, nothing is raised which could possibly justify leave to appeal, even if this were a matter not involving a direct appeal from the High Court.[5] The application for leave must therefore be refused.Solicitors:Luke Cunningham & Clere, Wellington for Respondent2 The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries v Musson DC Invercargill CIV-2009-025-483,15 October 2010.