GUY v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND [2013] NZSC 127
Arnold J's decision was made under s 40, not s 28(2); s 28(3) therefore did not confer jurisdiction on other Judges to review that decision, so the application for review was dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] NZSC 127
- Parties
- Applicant: RICHARD HUGH CLEVELAND GUY; Respondent: BANK OF NEW ZEALAND
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 18 November 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal and Fee Waiver Review / Application for Review of Registrar's Fee Waiver Decision; Application Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Legal Topics
- Fee Waiver, Jurisdiction to Review Judicial Decisions, Review of Registrar Decisions, 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
RICHARD HUGH CLEVELAND GUY
Applicant
BANK OF NEW ZEALAND
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal and Fee Waiver Review / Application for Review of Registrar's Fee Waiver Decision; Application Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Judges of the Supreme Court other than the original reviewing Judge have jurisdiction under s 28(3) to review a Judge's decision made under s 40
- 2 Whether the Registrar's refusal to waive filing fees had been rightly upheld
- 3 Whether appellant established undue hardship justifying fee waiver
Ratio Decidendi
Arnold J's decision was made under s 40, not s 28(2); s 28(3) therefore did not confer jurisdiction on other Judges to review that decision, so the application for review was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Orders
- Application for review dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
GUY v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND [2013] NZSC 127 [18 November 2013]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND[2013] NZSC 127BETWEEN RICHARD HUGH CLEVELAND GUYApplicantAND BANK OF NEW ZEALANDRespondentCourt: McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJCounsel: Applicant in personJudgment: 18 November 2013JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] Mr Guy appealed to the Court of Appeal against an order by an Associate Judge adjudicating him bankrupt.1 He applied for a waiver of the filing fee which was refused by the Registrar, whose decision was subsequently confirmed by Stevens J.2 Mr Guy then applied to this Court for leave to appeal against Stevens J'sjudgment and also sought waiver of this Court's filing fee. The Registrar refused that application.[2] Arnold J has upheld the Registrar's decision in a fully reasoned judgment.3Neither Stevens J nor Arnold J were satisfied that Mr Guy would face undue hardship if required to pay the filing fee in the respective Courts.1 Guy v Bank of New Zealand [2013] NZHC 836.2 Guy v Bank of New Zealand [2013] NZCA 238.3 Guy v Bank of New Zealand [2013] NZSC 105.[3] Mr Guy has now applied for other Judges of the Supreme Court to reviewArnold J's decision under s 28(3) of the Supreme Court Act 2003. That provision empowers Judges of the Court, who have jurisdiction to hear and determine a proceeding to confirm, modify or revoke a decision made by a single Judge under s 28(2).[4] Arnold J's decision was not, however, made under that provision. It was made under s 40, which is a specific provision in the Act dealing with review of theRegistrar's decisions concerning fees. Section 40 gives a person aggrieved by adecision of the Registrar refusing to waive a filing fee a right to have the decision reviewed by a Judge of the Court. There is no further right of review against theJudge's decision.[5] There is accordingly no jurisdiction to determine Mr Guy's application for review, which is accordingly dismissed.