P (CA334/2022) v HIGH COURT AT AUCKLAND [2022] NZCA 396
Section 56(4) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 does not override the separate leave requirement in s124 of the Human Rights Act 1993; because the applicant did not obtain leave under s124, the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction and the review application is declined.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] NZCA 396
- Parties
- Applicant: P (CA334/2022); First Respondent: HIGH COURT AT AUCKLAND; Second Respondent: COURT OF APPEAL; Third Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE; Fourth Respondent: ATTORNEY-GENERAL
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 24 August 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Review of Determination Under S49(4) Senior Courts Act 2016 / Post Determination — Jurisdictional Challenge (on the Papers)
- Outcome
- Application for review declined; Miller J's determination that the Court lacks jurisdiction is upheld
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Section 124 Human Rights Act 1993, Section 56 Senior Courts Act 2016
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
P (CA334/2022)
Applicant
HIGH COURT AT AUCKLAND
First Respondent
COURT OF APPEAL
Second Respondent
COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Third Respondent
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Fourth Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Determination Under S49(4) Senior Courts Act 2016 / Post Determination — Jurisdictional Challenge (on the Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether s56(4) Senior Courts Act 2016 permits an appeal to the Court of Appeal without leave under s124 Human Rights Act 1993
- 2 Whether the Court of Appeal presently has jurisdiction to hear the applicant's appeal
- 3 Whether Miller J erred in determining lack of jurisdiction
Ratio Decidendi
Section 56(4) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 does not override the separate leave requirement in s124 of the Human Rights Act 1993; because the applicant did not obtain leave under s124, the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction and the review application is declined.
Court Disposition
Application for review declined; Miller J's determination that the Court lacks jurisdiction is upheld
Orders
- The application for review of the determination dated 15 July 2022 is declined
- No extension of jurisdiction under s56(4) Senior Courts Act 2016 is recognised in lieu of leave under s124 Human Rights Act 1993
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
P (CA334/2022) v HIGH COURT AT AUCKLAND [2022] NZCA 396 [24 August 2022]NOTE: SUPREME COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OFTHE NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF P REMAINS IN FORCE.IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA334/2022[2022] NZCA 396BETWEEN P (CA334/2022)ApplicantAND HIGH COURT AT AUCKLANDFirst RespondentCOURT OF APPEALSecond RespondentCOMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUEThird RespondentATTORNEY-GENERALFourth RespondentCourt: Cooper P and Brown JCounsel: Applicant in personNo appearance for First and Second RespondentsM J McKillop and C P C Wrightson for Third and FourthRespondentsJudgment:(On the papers)24 August 2022 at 11.00 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for review of a determination of a single Judge of this Court isdeclined.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Brown J)[1] On 5 July 2022 Ms P filed a notice of appeal against a judgment ofthe High Court1 striking out an appeal from a decision of the Human Rights ReviewTribunal.2 In a minute dated 15 July 2022 Miller J determined that this Court does nothave jurisdiction to entertain Ms P's appeal unless and until she obtains leave to appealunder s 124 of the Human Rights Act 1993.[2] Ms P applies under s 49(4) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 (the SCA) for areview of the determination of Miller J. She contends that the 15 July 2022determination was in error because s 56(4) of the SCA provides that any party toproceedings may appeal without leave to this Court against any order or decision ofthe High Court striking out or dismissing the whole or any part of a proceeding.[3] This Court's jurisdiction is prescribed in s 56(1) of the SCA. The power tohear appeals specified in s 56(1)(a) is subject to specific provisions in other statutesprecluding or limiting a right of appeal to this Court.3 It is also subject to therequirement that leave be obtained for appeals from orders or decisions ofthe High Court made on an interlocutory application: see s 56(2), (3) and (5).[4] The role of s 56(4) is to provide a qualification to the restriction contained ins 56(3), whereby leave is not required under s 56(3) in order to appeal certaininterlocutory decisions which are final in effect. Section 56(4) does not have the effectof extending the s 56(1)(a) jurisdiction so as to override limitations in other statuteswhich confer or confine rights of appeal to this Court.[5] Section 124 of the Human Rights Act contains such a limitation. It providesthat an appeal to this Court against a determination of the High Court on a question oflaw may only be brought with the leave of the High Court or, if the High Court refusesleave, with special leave granted by this Court.1 P v High Court of Auckland [2022] NZHC 1382.2 [P] v High Court (Strike-Out Application) [2021] NZHRRT 56.3 Osborne v Auckland City Council [2012] NZCA 199, (2012) 21 PRNZ 76 at [22]–[35]; andPark v Kwak [2017] NZSC 2.[6] Ms P has not sought leave from the High Court to appeal to this Court unders 124. As explained above, s 56(4) of the SCA does not obviate that requirement.Consequently Miller J was correct in determining that this Court does not presentlyhave jurisdiction to entertain Ms P's appeal.[7] The application for review of the determination in the minute of 15 July 2022is declined.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Third and Fourth Respondents