RICHARD GREY V HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION HC AK CIV-2010-404-2242

RICHARD GREY V HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION HC AK CIV-2010-404-2242 19 May 2010IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2010-404-2242UNDER Judicature Act 1908 and AND UNDER the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from a judgment of the District Court BETWEEN RICHARD GREY Appellant AND HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 19 May 2010 Counsel: Appellant in person (with Mr Areta Ransfield as McKenzie Friend) Steve Haszard and Claire Paterson for Respondent Judgment: 19 May 2010[ORAL] JUDGMENT OF HUGH WILLIAMS JThe application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________ [1] This is an application by Mr Grey for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the recent judgment of this Court of 5 May 2010 dismissing his appeal against Judge Sinclair's earlier ruling. [2] It is clear, either from s 120 of the Residential Tenancies Act or s 67 of the Judicature Act of 1908 that in order to bring a second appeal, namely an appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision of this Court, Mr Grey must be able to show that the earlier decision involved a point of law of general or public importance, sufficient to justify the cost and delay of bringing that further appeal.[3] There was no point of law between these parties, and there is no point of law in the judgment of 5 May 2010. The appeal was dealt with on that date solely on the facts. There were no issues of law requiring determination. [4] When pressed this morning to say what the point of law was, on which leave to appeal should be granted, Mr Grey repeated his earlier suggestion that he and Ms Reilly had a co-ownership interest in the property with Housing New Zealand Corporation. That was said to arise because ACC had paid a sum of money to enable the house to be altered so that their son who had contracted meningitis could continue to live there rather than being hospitalised. [5] It must immediately be said that apart from Mr Grey's explanation, there is nothing whatever on the District Court file or on this Court's file which would justify any suggestion that the property was in some way co-owned. It may well be the case that ACC paid some money to alter the house. But, if so, the payment in law will have been to the son and not to Mr Grey or Ms Reilly. It would have been money paid to him so the house could be altered and he could live there under the care of Mr Grey and Ms Reilly, rather than having to go to hospital. [6] If the money had not been spent on altering the house, then it would have had to be repaid by the son to ACC. The fact that it was apparently spent on altering the house could not give Mr Grey or Ms Reilly any right to any part of the ownership of the property. [7] Apart from that issue – which is not, as mentioned, the subject of evidence or proof – there are no issues of law between these parties and there were none on 5 May when the appeal was dismissed. [8] Essentially, what Mr Grey wants to do is to re-run his factual arguments in the Court of Appeal. The law does not provide a second appeal in circumstances such as this to enable factual arguments to be re-run when they have been unsuccessful twice.[9] There is accordingly no point of law between the parties which would justify a second appeal - certainly not a point of law of general or public importance so that a second appeal should be allowed. Even if it were possible to spell out a point of law between these parties, it is a matter which would affect Mr Grey and Ms Reilly on the one hand and Housing New Zealand Corporation on the other. It would not be a point of law of any general importance or any importance to the public. It would be of importance only to the parties. [10] Accordingly there is no basis on which leave to appeal should be granted and Mr Grey's application in that respect is dismissed. [11] There were subsidiary arguments of less importance raised by Mr Grey asking for a stay of the Court's earlier decision and wanting to appeal against the Court striking Her Majesty the Queen and the former Governor-General, Dame Silvia Cartwright, out of the intituling to the proceedings. Those issues do not require to be addressed in view of the fact leave to appeal has been denied. [12] Fuller reasons for the dismissal of the application for leave will be delivered to the parties as soon as possible. .................................................................HUGH WILLIAMS J.Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, PO Box 2213 Auckland 1140 Email: Steve.Haszard@meredithconnell.co.nz Claire.Paterson@meredithconnell.co.nzCopy for: Richard Grey, 46 Paddington Street, Glen Innes, Auckland 1072. Areta Ransfield at Fax no. 09 570 4857 Judge A A Sinclair, District Court at Auckland.Case Officer: SusanJane.Parker@justice.govt.nz