SKELTON v BIRD [2015] NZHC 2697

SKELTON v BIRD [2015] NZHC 2697 [2 November 2015]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV-2015-404-778[2015] NZHC 2697BETWEEN BEVIN HALL SKELTONApplicantAND CHARLES HENRY BIRDRespondentHearing: 2 November 2015Appearances: Applicant in person(Respondent's appearance excused)Judgment: 2 November 2015JUDGMENT OF BREWER JThis judgment was delivered by me on 2 November 2015 at 3:00 pmpursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarCopies to: Applicant and Respondent in personIntroduction[1] Mr Skelton applies for leave to appeal my judgment of 24 June 20151 to the Court of Appeal.2 He also needs leave to make the application because he did not file his application for leave to appeal within 20 working days of my decision.3[2] Mr Skelton, although formerly a barrister and solicitor of this Court, seeks to be treated as a lay litigant and to be given latitude for ignorance. I accept that civil litigation was not the focus of his practice and that, despite years of litigating on his own behalf, he is not conversant with the High Court Rules. I grant leave for him to proceed with his application to take his case to the Court of Appeal.Application[3] The law is clear that a proposed appeal to the Court of Appeal must raise some question of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument. The issue must be of sufficient importance, public or private, to justify a further appeal. As has been said often in the past, the Court of Appeal's function is not the generalcorrection of error. It is to clarify the law and determine whether it has been properly interpreted and applied by the Courts below.[4] My judgment decided Mr Skelton's appeals against decisions of two Judgesof the District Court. Mr Skelton wanted Judge Blackie to remove the proceeding with Mr Bird to the High Court. Judge Blackie refused. Mr Skelton then wanted Judge Harrison to stay or adjourn the trial of the proceeding in the District Courtwhile he sought to have Judge Blackie's refusal overturned. When Judge Harrison,on the morning of the trial, declined to stay or adjourn it, Mr Skelton walked out of the Court.[5] Mr Skelton told me today that a short time after leaving the Court he received a telephone call from the registrar inquiring on behalf of Judge Harrison as to whether Mr Skelton was going to return. Mr Skelton, with the grave courtesy that has marked his appearances before me, told the registrar that he would not return1 Skelton v Bird [2015] NZHC 1434.2 Judicature Act 1908, s 67.3 High Court Rules, r 20.22(2).because he did not wish to acknowledge the authority of the District Court. Mr Skelton said to me in submissions that he felt there might have been some crucial issue estoppel that might hurt his related case in the High Court.[6] As far as I can make out, the issues that Mr Skelton would like to argue before the Court of Appeal are:(a) Whether I erred in ruling that any breaches of natural justice by Judge Blackie and Judge Harrison were of no consequence and that the procedures they adopted were justified; and(b) New evidence (of bank records) which Mr Skelton has lately obtained shows that his case against Mr Bird is materially stronger than it was before Judge Harrison, and this is a ground, on an interests of justice basis, for his appeal to be heard.Decision[7] I am not persuaded that Mr Skelton's case has issues of a significancejustifying attention by the Court of Appeal. Mr Skelton had his chance to argue his case in the District Court. He chose not to. The case had been in the District Court for years and his application to transfer it to the High Court came late.[8] It might be that Mr Skelton now has evidence which would have helped him both in his case before Judge Harrison and in his appeal before me. But there has to be an end to litigation. It is too late to start the case again.[9] I refuse leave for Mr Skelton to appeal to the Court of Appeal. I do not want to encourage Mr Skelton in any way, but I feel I should point to the existence of s 67(2) of the Judicature Act 1908 which provides for further application direct to the Court of Appeal.________________________________Brewer J