LEY AND ANOR V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ORS SC 77/2008
The Supreme Court refused leave because the statutory threshold in s14 was not met: the application lacked merit and did not present exceptional circumstances; issues should proceed by the ordinary appeal pathway to the Court of Appeal; the stay application likewise belongs to the Court of Appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 77/2008
- Parties
- Applicant: Raeanne Ley; Applicant: Anor; Respondent: The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development and Ors
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 24 November 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Application and Application for Stay Following High Court Costs Order
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed; application for stay dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal Under S14 Supreme Court Act 2003, Exceptional Circumstances, Stay of Enforcement, Wasted Costs
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Raeanne Ley
Applicant
Anor
Applicant
The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development and Ors
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Application and Application for Stay Following High Court Costs Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court should be granted under s14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003
- 2 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify a direct appeal to the Supreme Court
- 3 Whether the High Court judge should have been recused from the costs determination
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court refused leave because the statutory threshold in s14 was not met: the application lacked merit and did not present exceptional circumstances; issues should proceed by the ordinary appeal pathway to the Court of Appeal; the stay application likewise belongs to the Court of Appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; application for stay dismissed.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- The application for a stay of the costs judgment is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
LEY AND ANOR V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ORS SC 77/2008 24 November 2008IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 77/2008 [2008] NZSC 99BETWEEN RAEANNE LEY AND ANOR Applicants AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ORS Respondents Court: Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ Counsel: F C Deliu for Applicants Judgment: 24 November 2008JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B The application for a stay of the costs judgment is dismissed. REASONS[1] The applicants have sought leave for a direct appeal to this Court against a High Court order that their legal representatives, Mr Orlov, and Mr Deliu, must personally pay the costs of counsel for the children in the amount of $11,125, which the High Court found had been wasted by their conduct. It is also sought to appeal directly against the High Court Judge's refusal to recuse himself on the costs determination. [2] Section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 directs that this Court must not give leave to appeal directly to it against a decision made in a proceeding in a New Zealand Court other than the Court of Appeal unless (in addition to being satisfiedthat it is necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to hear and determine the proposed appeal) it is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that justify taking the proposed appeal directly to the Supreme Court. [3] We have not been so satisfied. In fact, quite the contrary. The application is clearly without merit in terms of s 14 and we have not found it necessary to require submissions from the respondent. Any appeal concerning the matters raised in this application should follow the normal appeal pathway and be brought in the Court of Appeal which is already seized of an appeal against the substantive judgment in the proceeding. [4] The application refers to certain collateral claims or complaints but their existence does not create exceptional circumstances. [5] There was also an application for a stay of the enforcement of the costs judgment. That too will be a matter for the Court of Appeal.Solicitors: Dennis J Gates, Whangaparaoa for Applicants