M v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION SC 118/2011
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the disputed High Court strike out orders are interlocutory for purposes of s 8(c) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 and thus not appealable to this Court, and the Court of Appeal Judge's decision fixing security for costs was an orthodox exercise of discretion...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 118/2011
- Parties
- Applicant: M; Respondent: MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 13 December 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review; Application for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Strike Out, Security for Costs, Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Orders
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
M
Applicant
MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review; Application for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Supreme Court can hear a direct appeal from a High Court decision striking out judicial review proceedings
- 2 Whether a decision fixing security for costs by a Court of Appeal Judge was reviewable by the Supreme Court
- 3 Whether a strike out order is an interlocutory decision under the Supreme Court Act 2003 and High Court Rules
Ratio Decidendi
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the disputed High Court strike out orders are interlocutory for purposes of s 8(c) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 and thus not appealable to this Court, and the Court of Appeal Judge's decision fixing security for costs was an orthodox exercise of discretion not warranting leave to appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Applicant to pay costs of $2,500 to the Respondent
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
M v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION SC 118/2011 13 December 2011NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OFAPPLICANT PROHIBITED.IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 118/2011[2011] NZSC 154BETWEEN MApplicantAND MINISTER OF IMMIGRATIONRespondentCourt: Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJCounsel: Applicant in PersonM G Coleman and R J Hoare for RespondentJudgment: 13 December 2011JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the RespondentREASONS[1] The applicant has appealed to the Court of Appeal against a decision of the High Court striking out his application for judicial review.1 A Court of Appeal Judge has declined his application for review of the decision of the Registrar of that Court to fix security for costs for that appeal at $2,780.2 He now seeks leave to appeal directly to this Court against the High Court judgment (and against an earlier High Court decision striking out a different judicial review application)3 and leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal Judge.1 M v Minister of Immigration HC Auckland CIV-2011-404-2913, 5 September 2011 per Courtney J.2 M(CA 587/2011) v Minister of Immigration [2011] NZCA 565.3 M v Minister of Immigration HC Auckland CIV-2011-404-1517, 10 May 2011 per Peters J.[2] This Court cannot hear the proposed direct appeals. Section 8(c) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 provides:8 Appeals against decisions of High Court in civil proceedingsThe Supreme Court can hear and determine an appeal by a party to a civil proceeding in the High Court against any decision made in the proceeding, unless—...(c) the decision was made on an interlocutory application.[3] A decision to strike out a proceeding is a decision made on an interlocutory application: see definition of interlocutory order as including "an order striking out the whole or part of a proceeding" in r 1.3 of the High Court Rules.[4] The Court of Appeal judgment concerning security for costs simply follows rulings made on similar applications by the applicant. The proposed appeal in relation to it must fail for the reason given in this Court's judgment declining leaveto appeal against those decisions,4 namely that the Judge's decision was an entirelyorthodox exercise of his discretion.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington4 M v Refugee Status Appeals Authority [2011] NZSC 143.