CLEMENTS v THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND [2019] NZCA 12
The review application was dismissed because the Registrar correctly exercised discretion under reg 5(2)(b): the applicant indicated she would proceed regardless of a waiver so the statutory second limb was not satisfied and, independently, the proposed appeal lacked sufficient public interest value and was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] NZCA 12
- Parties
- Applicant: Miriam Clements; First Respondent: The Queen of England; Second Respondent: Patsy Reddy; Third Respondent: Jacinda Ardern; Fourth Respondent: New Zealand Government; Fifth Respondents: Subordinates to the Crime
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 18 February 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Review of Registrar Decision on Fee Waiver; Application for Extension of Time (r 43) / On the Papers; Application for Review of Registrar's Refusal
- Outcome
- Application for review of the Registrar's decision declined
- Legal Topics
- Fee Waiver, Extension of Time, Strike Out, Public Interest
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Miriam Clements
Applicant
The Queen of England
First Respondent
Patsy Reddy
Second Respondent
Jacinda Ardern
Third Respondent
New Zealand Government
Fourth Respondent
Subordinates to the Crime
Fifth Respondents
Procedural Posture
Review of Registrar Decision on Fee Waiver; Application for Extension of Time (r 43) / On the Papers; Application for Review of Registrar's Refusal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Registrar erred in declining a fee waiver under Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001 reg 5(2)(b)
- 2 Whether the proceeding concerns a matter of genuine public interest
- 3 Whether the proceeding is unlikely to be commenced or continued unless the fee is waived
Ratio Decidendi
The review application was dismissed because the Registrar correctly exercised discretion under reg 5(2)(b): the applicant indicated she would proceed regardless of a waiver so the statutory second limb was not satisfied and, independently, the proposed appeal lacked sufficient public interest value and was substantively defective (unclear claim, no valid grounds), so waiver was not warranted.
Court Disposition
Application for review of the Registrar's decision declined
Orders
- The application for review of the Registrar's decision refusing to waive filing fees is declined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CLEMENTS v THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND [2019] NZCA 12 [18 February 2019]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA569/2018[2019] NZCA 12BETWEEN MIRIAM CLEMENTSApplicantAND THE QUEEN OF ENGLANDFirst RespondentPATSY REDDYSecond RespondentJACINDA ARDERNThird RespondentNEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENTFourth RespondentSUBORDINATES TO THE CRIMEFifth RespondentsCounsel: Applicant in personNo appearance for respondentsJudgment:(On the papers)18 February 2019 at 2.30 pmJUDGMENT OF ASHER JThe application for review of the Registrar's decision declining to waive paymentof filing fees is declined.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] This is an application to review the Registrar's decision to refuse to grant a feewaiver. The application relates to a r 43 application for an extension of time.[2] Ms Clements applied for a waiver of fees for her r 43 application and this wasdeclined by a decision of the Registrar on 18 January 2019 in accordance with theCourt of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001, reg 5(2). Ms Clements now seeks a reviewof this decision and has filed a supplementary argument.[3] The Registrar may waive the fee payable if it is satisfied that either of the twolimbs under reg 5(2) is met. Ms Clements' application concerns the second limb,which requires that the proceeding concern a matter of genuine public interest and isunlikely to be commenced or continued unless the fee is waived.1 The Registrar wasnot satisfied that the criteria were met as Ms Clements indicated in her application thatshe was likely to commence or continue the proceeding regardless of the waiver beingdeclined. Nothing in her supplementary argument changes this position.[4] Ms Clements' application, as noted by the Registrar, must also fail on the otherrequirement of reg 5(2)(b). The issues raised in the appeal are notionally of publicinterest, however, for the various reasons set out in the strike-out judgment which isthe subject of the appeal, difficulties arise such that any public interest value isdiminished.2 Orders are sought that the Court cannot make. The claim is difficult tounderstand and does not clearly identify decisions that are challenged. There is noclear cause of action pleaded and no valid grounds for judicial review have been putforward. As observed in French J's decision reviewing Ms Clements' earlierapplications, the appeal would be concerned with these specific procedural issues, notthe broader public implications.3[5] The application for review of the Registrar's decision refusing to grant a waiverof fees is therefore declined.1 Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001, reg 5(2)(b).2 Clements v Queen of England [2018] NZHC 2244 at [25]–[34].3 Clements v Queen of England [2018] NZCA 581 at [10].