PAULINE JANICE HARRISON v AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2013] NZSC 98

PAULINE JANICE HARRISON v AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2013] NZSC 98

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed appeal lacked sufficient public interest or apparent merit to justify dispensing with security for costs under r35(6)(c), the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a direct appeal against the Registrar's decision, and there was no necessity in the interests of justice to hear the appeal against the High Court strike out.

Citation
[2013] NZSC 98
Parties
First Applicant: Pauline Janice Harrison; Second Applicant: Angela Janice Harrison; First Respondent: Auckland District Health Board; Second Respondent: Second Respondent; Third Respondent: Third Respondent; Fourth Respondent: Fourth Respondent; Fifth Respondent: Health and Disability Commissioner; Sixth Respondent: Coronial Services Unit
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
15 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Application Following Court of Appeal Registrar and Judge Decisions on Security for Costs; High Court Strike Out Decision Under Review
Outcome
application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Strike Out, Abuse of Process, Standing, Public Interest Exception
Civil Procedure Costs and Security Administrative Law Medical Negligence Procedure Security for Costs Strike Out Abuse of Process Standing +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pauline Janice Harrison

First Applicant

Angela Janice Harrison

Second Applicant

Auckland District Health Board

First Respondent

Second Respondent

Second Respondent

Third Respondent

Third Respondent

Fourth Respondent

Fourth Respondent

Health and Disability Commissioner

Fifth Respondent

Coronial Services Unit

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Application Following Court of Appeal Registrar and Judge Decisions on Security for Costs; High Court Strike Out Decision Under Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether leave to appeal should be granted to the Supreme Court
  2. 2 whether security for costs fixed by the Court of Appeal Registrar should be dispensed with under r 35(6)(c) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005
  3. 3 whether the High Court correctly struck out the proceeding as an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed appeal lacked sufficient public interest or apparent merit to justify dispensing with security for costs under r35(6)(c), the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a direct appeal against the Registrar's decision, and there was no necessity in the interests of justice to hear the appeal against the High Court strike out.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed
  • Order prohibiting publication of names, addresses or identifying particulars of the second, third and fourth respondents