SIEMER v DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2019] NZCA 142

SIEMER v DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2019] NZCA 142 [7 May 2019]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA N/A[2019] NZCA 142BETWEEN JANE SIEMERApplicantAND DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHOREFirst RespondentAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL AT NORTHSHORESecond RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)7 May 2019 at 11 amJUDGMENT OF GILBERT JThe application for review of the Deputy Registrar's decision is declined.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] Jane Siemer applies for review of a decision of the Deputy Registrar dated5 April 2019 declining to accept for filing a document styled "Application for leaveon Human Rights Grounds". The body of the document clarifies that Mrs Siemer isseeking leave to appeal against a judgment of Downs J delivered on 6 March 2019.1The Judge declined Mrs Siemer's application under s 169(4) of the Senior Courts Act2016 (the Act) for leave to continue her proceeding seeking judicial review of adecision of the Disputes Tribunal and a decision of the District Court dismissing her1 Siemer v District Court [2019] NZHC 346.appeal from the Tribunal's decision. Leave to continue the judicial review proceedingwas required because of a civil restraint order made against Mrs Siemer by Hinton J.[2] In declining to accept the present application for filing, the Deputy Registrarobserved that under s 169(6) of the Act the Judge's determination of an application forleave is final.[3] Mrs Siemer contends the Deputy Registrar was wrong in law in refusing toaccept the document for filing on the grounds there was no right of appeal. Mrs Siemersays the Deputy Registrar either erred by misinterpreting the document as a notice ofappeal or he incorrectly applied the Act "in claiming an application for leave to appealis prevented by some statutory provision he failed to identify". Mrs Siemeracknowledges that she has no right to a first instance appeal. However, she argues thatthere is "no law" preventing her application for leave to appeal, particularly wherethe application seeks to "overturn alleged unlawful discrimination preventing accessby a High Court judge". This is a reference to Mrs Siemer's complaint that inthe course of his decision, the Judge made findings about Mr Siemer's conduct inbreach of the principles of natural justice. Mrs Siemer says this shows she wasthe victim of unlawful discrimination by the Judge.[4] The Deputy was plainly correct to reject the document for filing. There is nojurisdiction for this Court to entertain the proposed appeal and no jurisdiction to grantleave to consider it. Section 169(6) of the Act could not be clearer — the Judge'sdetermination of an application for leave is final.Result[5] The application for review of the Deputy Registrar's decision is declined.