SZEKELY v NORTH [2017] NZCA 295
Registrar's decision confirmed because the affidavit relied upon was irrelevant to the fee refund application, the appellant was assessed as having sufficient income to pay the filing fee, and the appeal did not constitute a matter of genuine public interest under reg 5(4).
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] NZCA 295
- Parties
- Appellant: Jozsef Gabor Szekely; First Respondent: Samuel Raymond North; Second Respondent: Debbie Vivian North
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 11 July 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Review of Registrar's Decision (filing Fee Refund) / Application for Review (on the Papers)
- Outcome
- Application for review declined; Registrar's decision confirmed
- Legal Topics
- Filing Fee Refund, Registrar Decision Review, Public Interest Under Reg 5(4) Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001, Ability to Pay
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jozsef Gabor Szekely
Appellant
Samuel Raymond North
First Respondent
Debbie Vivian North
Second Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review of Registrar's Decision (filing Fee Refund) / Application for Review (on the Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to a refund of the filing fee
- 2 Whether the affidavit relied on by the appellant was relevant to the review
- 3 Whether the appellant's financial position justifies waiver/refund of the filing fee
Ratio Decidendi
Registrar's decision confirmed because the affidavit relied upon was irrelevant to the fee refund application, the appellant was assessed as having sufficient income to pay the filing fee, and the appeal did not constitute a matter of genuine public interest under reg 5(4).
Court Disposition
Application for review declined; Registrar's decision confirmed
Orders
- Application for review of Registrar's decision declined
- Registrar's decision denying refund of filing fees confirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SZEKELY v NORTH [2017] NZCA 295 [11 July 2017]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA249/2017[2017] NZCA 295BETWEEN JOZSEF GABOR SZEKELYAppellantAND SAMUEL RAYMOND NORTHFirst RespondentDEBBIE VIVIAN NORTHSecond RespondentCounsel: Q S Haines for AppellantFirst Respondent in personJudgment:(On the papers)11 July 2017 at 10.00 amJUDGMENT OF FRENCH JReview of Registrar's DecisionThe application for review of the Registrar's decision declining to grant theappellant a refund of filing fees is declined.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] When Mr Szekely's lawyer filed the notice of appeal in this case on12 May 2017, he also paid the filing fee of $1,100.00. Mr Szekely subsequently sought a refund of the fee. This was declined by the Registrar.[2] Mr Szeleky now seeks a review of the Registrar's decision.[3] In support of his application for review, Mr Szekely relies on an affidavitsworn by a Mr Corke. However, the affidavit concerns Mr Corke's own dealingswith the respondents and his adverse view of the respondents. It is irrelevant for present purposes.[4] The second argument advanced by Mr Szekely is that he is in debt as a result of this litigation and it is the respondents who are to blame for that state of affairs because they have seriously misled the Court.[5] I accept, as did the Registrar, that Mr Szekely has a large amount of debt comprised mainly of legal fees and costs arising out of this litigation. Whether the respondents have seriously misled the Court is, however, for another day. It cannot be determined at this stage. What matters at this stage as regards filing fees is that although Mr Szekely has debt, he also has a not insignificant income. I am satisfied he is able to pay the filing fees.[6] I note too that Mr Szekely has stated he will continue with the proceeding regardless of the outcome regarding payment of filing fees.[7] Finally I am satisfied the appeal does not concern a matter of genuine public interest within the meaning of reg 5(4) of the Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001.[8] Accordingly I confirm the Registrar's decision as correct and decline the application for review.Solicitors:Q H Law, Levin for Appellant