JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH v THE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT [2015] NZSC 130

JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH v THE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT [2015] NZSC 130 [1 September 2015]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND[2015] NZSC 130BETWEEN JOHN KENNETH SLAVICHApplicantAND THE JUDGES OF THE SUPREMECOURTRespondentCourt: Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJCounsel: Applicant in personJudgment: 1 September 2015JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for review is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] Mr Slavich applies for a review, under s 28(3) of the Supreme Court Act2003, of William Young J's judgment of 11 August 2015.1[2] In that judgment William Young J upheld the Registrar's decision to refuse toaccept for filing an application for leave to appeal against a decision of 3 July 2015 of Venning J.2[3] Mr Slavich submits that William Young J's decision was erroneous because itdid not deal with the correct ground of recusal or with the grounds for reviewing theRegistrar's decision relating to s 8(c) of the Supreme Court Act. It also did not take1 Slavich v The Judges of the Supreme Court [2015] NZSC 125.2 Slavich v Justice O'Regan [2015] NZHC 1558.into account the alleged fact that the High Court decision declaring Mr Slavich a vexatious litigant3 should be treated as a nullity by this Court.[4] The question dealt with in William Young J's decision was whether this Courthas jurisdiction to deal with Mr Slavich's application. None of the matters raised inthe application for review by Mr Slavich are relevant to that point.[5] We agree with William Young J, for the reasons he gives, that there was no jurisdiction.4[6] The application for review is accordingly dismissed.53 See Attorney-General v Slavich [2013] NZHC 627. This is on the basis this Court "has yet to determine the matters upon which the [Applicant] was found to be a vexatious litigant".4 See Slavich v The Judges of the Supreme Court, above n 1, at [8].5 We have assumed that there is jurisdiction to review William Young J's decision under s 28(3); see Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] NZSC 31, (2014) 21 PRNZ 815 at [3] and Rabson v Chapman [2014] NZSC 90 at n 3, where the Court assumed, without deciding, that s 28(3) applies to an application for leave to appeal. William Young J is part of the Court for the reasons set out in Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation at [3] and Siemer v Stiassny[2014] NZSC 80 at [4] and [6]. The other Judges are party to this decision because they are permanent judges of this Court and there are not sufficient acting judges available to deal with the matter, even if it were appropriate to have a matter such as this dealt with solely by acting judges of this Court.