DREW v DISTRICT COURT AT PORIRUA [2014] NZHC 1678

DREW v DISTRICT COURT AT PORIRUA [2014] NZHC 1678 [17 July 2014]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYCIV 2014-485-1135[2014] NZHC 1678BETWEEN RICHARD ALLAN DREWApplicantAND THE REGISTRAR OF THE DISTRICTCOURT AT PORIRUARespondentHearing: On PapersCounsel: Applicant in Person (assisted by Mr Drew Snr)No appearance (with leave) for RespondentJudgment: 17 July 2014JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J[1] This is an application to appeal a decision of the District Court declining areview of a Registrar's decision to issue a warrant to seize property by way of unpaidfines.[2] The car was seized in relation to fines owed by a Mr Shane Cavanagh. At the time the car was registered to Mr Cavanagh, although as Mr Drew Snr points out, it was only an unconfirmed registration. Mr Drew says he was the true owner and filed a claim in relation to it. As the law then provided for (it has since been changed) the Registrar proceeded to sell the car prior to Mr Drew's claim beingconsidered. This all occurred in 2010.[3] In late 2013 Judge Walker considered an application to review the decision. This was more then three years after the car had been sold. In a full reserveddecision, the Judge noted he had no power to overturn the Registrar's decisionbecause the warrant has been executed and the car sold.[4] Mr Drew seeks leave to appeal out of time against Judge Walker's decision.The matter was called in a chambers list as it was not apparent whether what had been filed was an appeal or an application to judicially review Judge Walker. It was confirmed at that hearing that an appeal was intended, and the matter was set down for hearing today.[5] Unfortunately, there is no jurisdiction for such an appeal.1 This meant Mr Drew and Mr Drew Snr were understandably frustrated having expected a furtherday in Court. That is always regrettable but ultimately it is always an applicant'sresponsibility if an appeal is filed for which there is no jurisdiction. The Court cannot do other than apply the law.[6] The application is strictly speaking an application for leave to extend the time in which to appeal. I decline that application because there would be no jurisdiction for the appeal.[7] I also observe that I would have declined the application for lack of merit. Itwould be an appeal against Judge Walker's decision that he also had no power toreview the Registrar at the point in time in which the application came before him. Mr Drew wishes to address the merits, but again cannot overcome the point that the underlying application to review the Registrar was also one that was ineffective by the time it was made. It was too late for that type of application regardless of the merits.[8] Finally, I observe the proceedings being brought – review of Registrar and appeal from that – could not assist in the ultimate goal which is, as I understand from Mr Drew Snr, compensation for consequential losses caused by the sale.1 Page v Ministry of Justice [2013] NZHC 1309; Underhill v Police [2014] NZHC 1367.[9] The application is dismissed.___________________________Simon France J