CULLUM v BARFOOT [2020] NZHC 3507

CULLUM v BARFOOT [2020] NZHC 3507 [22 December 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2020-404-1379[2020] NZHC 3507BETWEEN KATE CULLUMAppellantAND KIRI BARFOOTRespondentOn the papers: At AucklandJudgment: 22 December 2020JUDGMENT OF POWELL J[Application for leave to appeal]This judgment was delivered by me on 22 December 2020 at 3.30 pm pursuant toR 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:[1] On 9 June 2020 I dismissed an application for leave to appeal brought byMs Cullum1 in respect of a decision of the District Court dismissing her appeal againsta decision of the Disputes Tribunal ("the Disputes Tribunal matter").[2] On 22 October 2020 I dismissed an application for leave to appeal brought byMs Cullum2 in respect of a decision of the District Court addressing three decisions ofthe Tenancy Tribunal ("the Tenancy Tribunal matter").3[3] Ms Cullum has attempted to challenge my decisions, first in the Supreme Courtand subsequently in the Court of Appeal. In the Court of Appeal Collins J dismissedMs Cullum's application for review of two decisions of a Deputy Registrar decliningto accept for filing notices of appeal as well as an application for a stay.4[4] Justice Collins noted that Ms Cullum had no right to further appeal theDisputes Tribunal decision beyond the District Court,5 and informed Ms Cullum thatif she wished to pursue her appeal in respect of the Tenancy Tribunal matter she wouldrequire leave from the High Court pursuant to s 120 of the Residential Tenancies Act1986.6[5] Ms Cullum has now applied for leave to appeal both of my decisions to theCourt of Appeal.Discussion[6] I commence with my analysis of Ms Cullum's application with regard to theDisputes Tribunal matter. As Collins J has already advised Ms Cullum, she has noability to appeal that decision any further. As a result, and leaving aside the merits ofthe application and whether it is out of time, there can be no basis to grant leave toappeal and the application must therefore be dismissed.1 Cullum v Gordon [2020] NZHC 1261.2 Cullum v Barfoot [2020] NZHC 2777.3 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Cullum [2020] NZDC 121614 Cullum v Barfoot [2020] NZCA 624.5 At [8].6 At [7] and [11].[7] In relation to the Tenancy Tribunal matter, pursuant to s 120(2) of theResidential Tenancies Act this Court:May grant leave if, in its opinion, the appeal involves a question of lawthat, because of its general or public importance or for any other reasons,ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.[8] As I dismissed Ms Cullum's application for leave to appeal the District Courtdecision on the basis it was an abuse of process I cannot see on what basis the decisioninvolves a question of law, let alone one that because of its general or publicimportance or for any other reasons ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal fordecision. On that decision too, leave to appeal must be declined.Decision[9] The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed._______________________________Powell J