VUKOMANOVIC v RESIDENCE REVIEW BOARD SC 140/2010
The statutory scheme in the Immigration Act 1987 (ss115 and 116) limits appeals in Residence Review Board matters and, read with s8(a) of the Supreme Court Act 2003, excludes jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from the High Court in this context; therefore the application for leave to appeal was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 140/2010
- Parties
- Applicant: Gordana Vukomanovic; Respondent: Residence Review Board
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 9 March 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court (administrative/immigration) / Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order for costs
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Superior Courts, Leave to Appeal, Finality of Statutory Appeal, Judicial Review
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gordana Vukomanovic
Applicant
Residence Review Board
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court (administrative/immigration) / Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the High Court in respect of a Residence Review Board determination
- 2 Whether the statutory scheme in the Immigration Act 1987 and the Supreme Court Act 2003 excludes a right of appeal to the Supreme Court
- 3 Whether the applicant can proceed by leave when statute provides finality of appeal to the Court of Appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The statutory scheme in the Immigration Act 1987 (ss115 and 116) limits appeals in Residence Review Board matters and, read with s8(a) of the Supreme Court Act 2003, excludes jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from the High Court in this context; therefore the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order for costs
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- No order for costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
VUKOMANOVIC v RESIDENCE REVIEW BOARD SC 140/2010 9 March 2011IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 140/2010[2011] NZSC 15BETWEEN GORDANA VUKOMANOVICApplicantAND RESIDENCE REVIEW BOARDRespondentCourt: Elias CJ, Tipping and McGrath JJCounsel: Applicant in PersonJ Foster for RespondentJudgment: 9 March 2011JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed with no order for costs.REASONS[1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court1declaring that the Court had no jurisdiction to consider an appeal she had brought out of time against a decision of the Residence Review Board. The Court, however, directed that the purported appeal should be treated as an application for judicial review.[2] Despite that avenue being left open to her by the Court, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against the High Court's decision.2 The High Court dismissed that application and a fresh application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed by that Court.3 The applicant now seeks leave to bring a direct appeal to this Court against the High Court judgment.1 Vukomanovic v Residence Review Board HC Wellington CIV-2010-485-497, 20 May 2010.2 Vukomanovic v Residence Review Board HC Wellington CIV-2010-485-497, 24 June 2010.3 Vukomanovic v Residence Review Board HC Wellington [2010] NZCA 542.[3] Section 115 of the Immigration Act 1987 provides for a right of appeal, on a question of law only, against a determination of the Residence Review Board. There is a right of further appeal, with leave, to the Court of Appeal under s 116 and the decision on any such appeal is expressed by s 116(4) to be final.[4] This statutory scheme plainly excludes any right of appeal to this Court arising from judgments of the High Court or the Court of Appeal in relation to determinations of the Board. It follows that, in terms of s 8(a) of the Supreme Court Act 2003, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal against theHigh Court's judgments on appeal from the Board.[5] Accordingly, the application is dismissed. There will be no order for costs.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington