GARTH BOWKETT PATERSON v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZSC 2

GARTH BOWKETT PATERSON v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZSC 2 [10 February 2022]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC 147/2021[2022] NZSC 2BETWEEN GARTH BOWKETT PATERSONApplicantAND ATTORNEY-GENERAL(FOR MINISTRY OF JUSTICE)RespondentCourt: William Young, Ellen France and Williams JJCounsel: Applicant in personH M Carrad for RespondentJudgment: 10 February 2022JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.B There is no order as to costs.____________________________________________________________________REASONSIntroduction[1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appealdeclining to grant an extension of time under r 43(2) of the Court of Appeal (Civil)Rules 2005 to seek a fixture and file his case on appeal.11 Paterson v Attorney-General [2021] NZCA 536 (Miller and Cooper JJ) [CA judgment].Background[2] The current application has its genesis in a dispute between the applicant andother parties in relation to a subdivision of land in the Hawkes Bay.2 The applicantwas adjudicated bankrupt on 5 April 2016 for unpaid costs on the application of oneof the parties associated with this dispute.3[3] The applicant did not appear at the hearing of the application to bankrupt himon 5 April 2016 although he had received formal notice of the hearing. The fixturewas not published online on the daily list on the Courts of New Zealandwebsite. Relying on that omission, the applicant filed proceedings against theAttorney-General claiming the omission of the fixture from the daily list was a breachof his right to natural justice under s 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990;a negligent misstatement of fact; and breached a duty of care owed to him. The claimwas dismissed.4 The High Court noted, amongst other matters, that the applicant hadbeen afforded the right to notice when he was formally served with the relevantdocuments and had also been given the opportunity to be heard. The applicantappealed from that decision to the Court of Appeal but the appeal was deemedabandoned because it was not pursued in time.5 The applicant sought an extension oftime.[4] In dismissing the application, the Court of Appeal said that if the appeal wasgenuinely arguable, the Court would have granted an extension of time as the delaywas not substantial and there was no prejudice to the respondent. But the Courtdeclined the application because it said that the appeal was "manifestly hopeless".6The Court considered the proceeding was an abuse of process as it was "a collateralattack on the order adjudicating him bankrupt" which the applicant had twice failed to2 See the summary in Paterson v Lepionka & Co Investments Ltd [2021] NZSC 171 [SC leavedecision] at [1]–[6].3 Lepionka & Co Investments Ltd v Paterson HC Wellington CIV-2015-485-973, 5 April 2016(Minute of Associate Judge Osborne).4 Paterson v Attorney-General [2020] NZHC 3253 (Edwards J).5 The applicant unsuccessfully sought dispensation of security for costs and did not file hisapplication for review of that decision in time.6 CA judgment, above n 1, at [13] citing Almond v Read [2017] NZSC 80, [2017] 1 NZLR 801 at[39(c)].have annulled.7 The Court also said that the decision of the High Court was "plainlycorrect".8The proposed appeal[5] The applicant says that the proposed appeal raises a question of general andpublic importance as it concerns a breach of natural justice on the basis ofmisinformation on the Courts of New Zealand website and a question of generalcommercial significance because of the importance of the ability to rely on digitalpublications. The applicant also contends that there are various errors in theCourt of Appeal judgment, including the failure to recognise that his appeal has merit.[6] We are not satisfied that the criteria for leave to appeal are met.9 The proposedappeal would not challenge the principles applicable to applications under r 43(2) ofthe Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules but rather would involve the application of thoseprinciples to these particular facts. No questions of general or public importance or ofgeneral commercial significance arise. Further, we accept the submissions for therespondent that the underlying proceedings and the present application in effect seekto challenge the High Court's decision on 5 April 2016 to adjudicate the applicantbankrupt, which he has unsuccessfully sought to annul on two previous occasions.10In these circumstances, it is not necessary in the interests of justice to allow him topursue this matter. Finally, nothing raised by the applicant calls into question the Courtof Appeal's assessment.Result[7] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent7 At [13] citing Paterson v Lepionka & Co Investments Ltd [2016] NZHC 1331; andPaterson v Lepionka & Co Investments Ltd [2018] NZHC 3022, upheld on appeal inPaterson v Lepionka & Co Investments Ltd [2019] NZCA 548.8 At [14].9 Senior Courts Act 2016, ss 74(1), (2) and (4).10 See SC leave decision, above n 2, at [9].