JOHN MORGAN MACKENZIE v LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER [2013] NZSC 140
The Registrar's decision to refuse filing was correct because the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the Court of Appeal's refusal of leave under s7(b); however, the Court will, under s14, treat the application as if it sought leave to appeal from the High Court and allow limited further...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] NZSC 140
- Parties
- Applicant: John Morgan MacKenzie; Respondent: Legal Services Commissioner
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 6 December 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court and Review of Registrar's Refusal / Supreme Court Determination on Jurisdiction; Application Treated as Leave to Appeal From High Court Judgment
- Outcome
- Registrar's decision confirmed; application to be treated as if it sought leave to appeal from the High Court; applicant granted leave to file additional submissions by 24 January 2014; respondent need not file unless notified.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Leave to Appeal, Procedural Filing Requirements, Direct Appeal From High Court
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John Morgan MacKenzie
Applicant
Legal Services Commissioner
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court and Review of Registrar's Refusal / Supreme Court Determination on Jurisdiction; Application Treated as Leave to Appeal From High Court Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the Court of Appeal's refusal of leave to appeal
- 2 Whether the Registrar correctly refused to accept for filing the applicant's document
- 3 Whether the application can be treated as an application for leave to appeal from the High Court under s14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003
Ratio Decidendi
The Registrar's decision to refuse filing was correct because the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the Court of Appeal's refusal of leave under s7(b); however, the Court will, under s14, treat the application as if it sought leave to appeal from the High Court and allow limited further submissions.
Court Disposition
Registrar's decision confirmed; application to be treated as if it sought leave to appeal from the High Court; applicant granted leave to file additional submissions by 24 January 2014; respondent need not file unless notified.
Orders
- Registrar's decision is confirmed
- The application is to be treated as if it sought leave to appeal from the High Court judgment
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
JOHN MORGAN MACKENZIE v LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER [2013] NZSC 140 [6 December 2013]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND[2013] NZSC 140BETWEEN JOHN MORGAN MACKENZIEApplicantAND LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONERRespondentCounsel: Applicant in personR J Gordon for RespondentJudgment: 6 December 2013JUDGMENT OF WILLIAM YOUNG JA The Registrar's decision is confirmed but the application is to be treated as if it sought leave to appeal from the High Court judgment.B Any additional submissions by the applicant are to be filed by 24 January 2014.C There is no need for the respondent to file submissions in opposition unless further notified by the Court.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The applicant seeks review of a decision by the Registrar, conveyed by letter of 21 October 2013, not to accept for filing what purported to be an application for leave to appeal1 from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 23 July 2013.2 In that judgment, the Court of Appeal refused an application by the applicant for special1 In the document, the applicant "applies to the Supreme Court of New Zealand to appeal from the Court of Appeal judgment". For this reason, I will treat it as an application for leave to appealeven though there are indications in the document that the applicant believes that he has a right of appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment.2 MacKenzie v Legal Services Commissioner [2013] NZCA 326.leave to appeal against a judgment of Dobson J delivered on 21 November 20123dismissing an appeal from the Legal Services Tribunal.4[2] Under s 7(b) of the Supreme Court Act 2003, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a decision to refuse leave or special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court therefore has no jurisdiction to consider the applicant's proposed appeal. It follows that the Registrar's decision was correct.[3] There is jurisdiction under s 14 of the Supreme Court Act for the Supreme Court to entertain an appeal directly from the High Court judgment. To avoid thenecessity for further papers to be filed, I direct that the applicant's application betreated as if it sought leave to appeal from that judgment. To facilitate the consideration of that application, I direct that any additional submissions from the applicant be filed by 24 January 2014 and that the respondent need not lodge submissions in opposition unless otherwise notified by the Court.Solicitors:MinterEllisonRuddWatts, Wellington for Respondent3 MacKenzie v Legal Services Commissioner [2012] NZHC 3098.4 Re CE (Civil) [2012] NZLAT 023.