SLAVICH v REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT AT AUCKLAND [2015] NZCA 218

SLAVICH v REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT AT AUCKLAND [2015] NZCA 218 [8 June 2015]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND[2015] NZCA 218BETWEEN JOHN KENNETH SLAVICHAppellantAND REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT ATAUCKLANDRespondentJudgment:(On the papers)8 June 2015 at 11 amJUDGMENT OF WILD J[Review of Registrar's decision]The Registrar's decision of 18 May 2015 refusing to accept for filing the notice of appeal received by this Court on 13 May 2015 is upheld.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] By application filed on 27 May 2015 Mr Slavich seeks review under r 7(2) ofthe Registrar's decision of 18 May refusing to accept for filing a notice of appealreceived by this Court on 13 May.[2] Upon the Attorney-General's application, the High Court at Auckland on27 March 2013 made orders under s 88B of the Judicature Act 1908 against Mr Slavich.1 Those orders prevent Mr Slavich instituting or continuing any civilproceeding without the leave of the High Court. Appeals in matters "currently on foot" (as at 27 March 2013) were excepted.1 Attorney-General v Slavich [2013] NZHC 627.[3] In a decision of 1 April 2015 Venning J declined Mr Slavich leave to file a proposed proceeding seeking a writ of mandamus against the Registrar of the Supreme Court.2 In the same decision the Judge declined Mr Slavich's applicationto review the decision of the Registrar of the High Court refusing to accept the proposed proceeding for filing.[4] On 22 April Mr Slavich filed a further application for leave under s 88B together with a memorandum seeking that six named High Court Judges recuse themselves from dealing with the application, should it be placed before any of them. Venning J was one of the named Judges.[5] In a decision on 8 May Venning J declined to recuse himself from dealingwith Mr Slavich's further application and dismissed it.3 This is the relevant part ofVenning J's decision:[3] The fact a Judge has made a decision adverse to a party is not a basis for recusal. I decline to recuse myself.[4] Mr Slavich as been declared a vexatious litigant. In a decision of 1 April 2015 the Court declined Mr Slavich leave to file proposed proceedings against the Registrar of the Supreme Court and in the samedecision declined the application to review the Registrar's decision not toaccept the papers.[5] The recent application by Mr Slavich is an attempt to revisit the issues dealt with on 1 April. It is further evidence of the vexatious nature ofMr Slavich's proposed proceedings. Leave is declined to Mr Slavich to commence the proceedings. The Registrar's decision not to accept them is confirmed.[6] On 13 May Mr Slavich filed with this Court a notice of appeal against: the decision by Justice Venning to not recuse himself. That decision wasmade at paragraph [3] in a Decision dated 8 May 2015 in the Auckland High Court.[7] On 18 May the Registrar of this Court returned Mr Slavich's notice of appealto him under cover of a letter stating:Your Notice of Appeal received on 13 May 2015 is not accepted for filing.2 Slavich v Registrar of the Supreme Court of New Zealand HC Auckland, 1 April 2015.3 Slavich v Registrar of the Auckland High Court HC Auckland CIV-2015-404-0937, 8 May 2015.Section 88B(3) of the Judicature Act 1908 provides that no appeal shall lie from an order granting or refusing leave under s 88B(2).Accordingly your documentation is returned.[8] The application for review Mr Slavich filed on 27 May is grounded on hisassertion that the Registrar has confused Venning J's "preliminary procedural"decision or "opinion" at [3] not to recuse himself, with his substantive decision(presumably at [5]) to decline Mr Slavich leave to commence his proposed proceeding. While Mr Slavich accepts s 88B(3) proscribes an appeal from the latter, he asserts it does not apply to the former.[9] Mr Slavich is abusing the procedure of both the High Court and this Court. His attempt to have Judges he names recuse themselves from dealing with his second s 88B application, and then to seek to appeal the refusal of one of those Judges to do so, is a baseless and mischievous attempt to circumvent s 88B(3). I say "baseless"because, uniformly, Mr Slavich seeks recusal of any Judge who has previously made a decision adverse to him. As Venning J pointed out, that is not a basis for recusal. I note that Mr Slavich sought, on the same basis, to have Harrison J recuse himself from dealing with this present application for review.[10] Further, I agree with Venning J that Mr Slavich's 22 April application is a vexatious attempt to revisit the application Venning J had decided in his 1 April 2015 decision. More fundamentally, both these matters are attempts again to bring before the Court the matter with which Mr Slavich is now obsessed, which has been thoroughly aired and decided, first in this Court and ultimately in the Supreme Court.[11] For those reasons, having reviewed the Registrar's decision of 18 May, Iuphold it.