LISTER v THE (DEPUTY) REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY [2015] NZHC 1246

LISTER v THE (DEPUTY) REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY [2015] NZHC 1246 [5 June 2015]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV-2015-404-1204[2015] NZHC 1246IN THE MATTER of an application for reviewUNDER The Judicature Act 1908 schedule 2High Court Rules s 2.11(1)(b)BETWEEN DEBRA ANNE GRETA LISTERApplicantAND THE (DEPUTY) REGISTRAR HIGHCOURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYRespondentHearing: On the papersJudgment: 5 June 2015JUDGMENT OF ELLIS JCopy to:The applicant[1] Ms Lister seeks a review of the Registrar's decision to decline to accept her recent application for judicial review for filing. Although her statement of claim is not before me (it having been returned to her by the Registrar) my understanding is that, in it, she sought judicial review of a decision of Associate Judge Christiansen on 19 August 2014 and of a decision of Justice Asher dated 20 October 2014 in which he declined her application for a review of Judge Christiansen's decision.1[2] Ms Lister says, and I accept, that her proposed application for judicial review is different, and quite separate from, her original application for review of the Associate Judge's decision. The former application was sought to be brought under the Judicature Amendment Act 1972. The latter was brought pursuant to s 26P of the Judicature Act 1908.[3] That distinction does not, however, assist Ms Lister. The short point is that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain judicial review proceedings in relation to decisions made by its own Judges and Associate Judges. The decisions in Bulmer v Attorney-General and Hawkins v Attorney-General make that clear.2 To similar effect is the decision of the House of Lords in Re Racal Communications Ltd.3 No other Court has jurisdiction either.[4] Accordingly the only course open to Ms Lister is to apply for leave to appeal Asher J's decision, which she has done. Given that Asher J has declined that application it might be open to her yet to apply to the Court of Appeal for leave, although I suspect that she is considerably out of time to do that. Nor is this judgment to be taken as suggesting that such an application would either be appropriate or warranted.1 Lister v Pegg Ayton Gordon Trustee Ltd [2014] NZHC 1956; Lister v Pegg Ayton Gordon Trustee Ltd [2014] NZHC 2553.2 Bulmer v Attorney-General (1998) 12 PRNZ 316 (CA); and Hawkins v Attorney-General (1999) 14 PRNZ 5.3 Re Racal Communications Ltd [1981] AC 374, [1980] 2 ALL ER 634 (HL).[5] For the above reasons, the Registrar was plainly right to reject Ms Lister'sclaim for filing. Her application for review of that decision is dismissed accordingly.____________________ Rebecca Ellis J