REID v MASTERTON DISTRICT COURT CA365/2012 [2013] NZCA 632

REID v MASTERTON DISTRICT COURT CA365/2012 [2013] NZCA 632 [10 December 2013]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA365/2012[2013] NZCA 632BETWEEN JAMES ROBERT REIDApplicantAND MASTERTON DISTRICT COURTRespondentCounsel: Applicant in personT J Warburton and D M Consedine for RespondentJudgment: 10 December 2013 at 3 pmJUDGMENT O'REGAN P(Application to Review Deputy Registrar's Decision)A The application for review of the decision of the Deputy Registrar refusing to waive payment of the setting down fee is dismissed. The fee of $2,658.40 must be paid within 20 working days of the date of this judgment.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The appeal to which the present application relates is from a decision of McKenzie J, striking out claims brought by the appellant against the MastertonDistrict Court and the "Masterton High Court".1 The proceeding was commenced by the applicant and Graeme Frederick Hale as trustees of the Frederick Frank Family Trust against Carterton Auto Court Limited, trading as McKenzie Motors. The proceeding remained in place against McKenzie Motors, but the applicant wishes to challenge on appeal the striking out of the District Court and the High Court as parties to the proceeding.1 Reid v Carterton Auto Court Ltd [2012] NZHC 1153.[2] The applicant sought a waiver of the filing fee and dispensation with security for costs in relation to the appeal. Both were refused. He then sought reviews of both of these decisions, but they were upheld by Wild J.2 He then paid the filing fee and paid the amount set as security for costs for the appeal.[3] The applicant then filed a case on appeal and sought a fixture for the hearing of the appeal. He asked for a waiver of the setting down fee. This was based on essentially the same grounds as his earlier applications for waiver of the filing fee and for dispensation from the requirement to pay security for costs. The Deputy Registrar refused to waive the setting down fee. In her decision she said that she was of the view that, on the materials supplied by the applicant, there was not a question of law that was of significant interest to the public or to a substantial section of the public, but that the judgment related to a particular set of facts relating only to the applicant personally.[4] There have been delays in the progress of this appeal. The applicant sought permission to file an affidavit to bring matters up to date, and I allowed this. In the affidavit he says that he considers that the enforcement of a hire purchase debt involved fraudulent conduct, and that the use of the court processes for enforcement purposes involved an abuse of those processes. However, his attempt to expand his claim to include parties who were not party to the original claim has been ruled out by a High Court Judge because the applicant has been declared a vexatious litigant, and this conduct amounts to commencing a new claim, which he is not permitted to do as a vexatious litigant.[5] The appeal involves something of a crusade on the part of the applicant, but in essence it is a civil dispute about a debt and the enforcement proceedings taken after default in payment of the debt. I agree with the view expressed by the Deputy Registrar in her decision refusing waiver and by Wild J in his decision upholding theRegistrar's refusal to waive payment of the filing fee and to dispense with security for costs that this is essentially a private dispute that does not give rise to any issue of general interest to the public. In those circumstances, the jurisdiction to waive2 Reid v Masterton District and High Courts CA365/2012, 6 August 2012.payment of the setting down fee in reg 5(4) of the Court of Appeal's Fees Rules 2001cannot be invoked.[6] The applicant says the case raises questions about fiduciary duties of court officials and says the fact that he is alleging fraud means the judicial power to strike out is overridden. He will presumably argue these propositions at the appeal hearing. I do not consider that the fact that he wishes to argue these points turns the case into a matter of public interest. Other than making that observation I will not comment on the merits of the appeal.[7] I do not consider that the Deputy Registrar erred. I therefore uphold theDeputy Registrar's decision and dismiss the application for review.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent