CHARLTON V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CA CA9/06
The deputy registrar's decision was correct and is confirmed because the applicant failed to demonstrate the proceeding raised a question of law of significant interest under reg 5 and had already pursued the same arguments unsuccessfully through multiple fora, so waiver of the filing fee was not appropriate.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-efe202d2_c0be_4ffe_9c79_99a80956ee36.pdf
- Parties
- Applicant: Philip Charlton; Respondent: Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 28 March 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Review of Deputy Registrar's Decision Refusing Waiver of Filing Fee for Special Leave to Appeal / Chambers Judgment on the Papers Confirming Deputy Registrar (decision Dated 7 February 2006)
- Outcome
- Deputy registrar's decision dated 7 February 2006 confirmed; waiver of filing fee refused.
- Legal Topics
- Waiver of Court Fees, Special Leave to Appeal, Public Interest Requirement, Procedural Bars, Leave to Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Philip Charlton
Applicant
Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Deputy Registrar's Decision Refusing Waiver of Filing Fee for Special Leave to Appeal / Chambers Judgment on the Papers Confirming Deputy Registrar (decision Dated 7 February 2006)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the filing fee should be waived under Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001 reg 5
- 2 Whether the proceeding raises a question of law of significant interest to the public or a substantial section of the public
- 3 Whether repeated unsuccessful challenges justify further fee waiver
Ratio Decidendi
The deputy registrar's decision was correct and is confirmed because the applicant failed to demonstrate the proceeding raised a question of law of significant interest under reg 5 and had already pursued the same arguments unsuccessfully through multiple fora, so waiver of the filing fee was not appropriate.
Court Disposition
Deputy registrar's decision dated 7 February 2006 confirmed; waiver of filing fee refused.
Orders
- Decision of the deputy registrar dated 7 February 2006 is confirmed
- Waiver of the filing fee is refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CHARLTON V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CA CA9/06 28 March 2006IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA9/06BETWEEN PHILIP CHARLTON Applicant AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Respondent Counsel: T McGurk for Applicant Judgment: 28 March 2006 (On the papers)JUDGMENT OF CHAMBERS J The decision of the deputy registrar dated 7 February 2006 is confirmed. REASONS[1] Philip Charlton has applied for a review of the deputy registrar's decision refusing to waive the filing fee on his application for special leave to appeal to this court. The registrar was not satisfied that the proceeding raised a question of law of significant interest to the public or to a substantial section of the public: see Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001, reg 5. [2] I am satisfied that the registrar's decision was correct. Mr Charlton has been unsuccessful in his arguments before the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development, the Benefits' Review Committee, the Social Security Appeal Authority, and the High Court. The High Court declined leave to appeal to this court on several grounds, including that the proposed questions were not questions of law.Although the questions have been tweaked for the purposes of the outstanding application for special leave to appeal to this court, the basic arguments remain the same. [3] Mr Charlton has now had a number of bites at the cherry. If he wants to try to obtain what will effectively be a fourth appeal, he will have to pay the filing fee. I am not convinced that the matters he wishes to raise are of significant interest to a substantial section of the public. If the Combined Beneficiaries Union Inc is of a different view, as Ms Capel avers, then it may be able to assist Mr Charlton in the payment of the fee. [4] The view I have expressed as to public interest will in no way affect, let alone bind, the court which will determine the application for special leave on 19 June. Indeed, that court will not know of this decision. If that court grants leave to pursue the appeal, then Mr Charlton may apply afresh for waiver of the fees that would otherwise be payble on filing the notice of appeal and setting down for hearing.Solicitors: Otene & Ellis, Onehunga, Auckland, for Applicant