MEEK v HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER [2016] NZCA 426
The extension of time was refused because, although the delay was short and caused by the appellant being self-represented, those factors were outweighed by the absence of merit in the appeal and the appellant's failure to produce evidence of impecuniosity; accordingly it was not appropriate to allow an extension to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] NZCA 426
- Parties
- Appellant: Stuart James Meek; Respondent: Health and Disability Commissioner
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 9 September 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (judicial Review) / Application for Extension of Time to Seek Dispensation of Security for Costs
- Outcome
- Application for extension of time declined; security for costs ordered to be paid.
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Extension of Time, Impecuniosity / Dispensation of Costs, Scope of Judicial Review
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Stuart James Meek
Appellant
Health and Disability Commissioner
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (judicial Review) / Application for Extension of Time to Seek Dispensation of Security for Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to apply for dispensation of security for costs under r 35(7)(a) Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005
- 2 Whether the appeal has sufficient merit to justify granting an extension and dispensing with security for costs
- 3 Whether the Registrar had jurisdiction to consider the late application and whether a Judge must exercise power to extend time
Ratio Decidendi
The extension of time was refused because, although the delay was short and caused by the appellant being self-represented, those factors were outweighed by the absence of merit in the appeal and the appellant's failure to produce evidence of impecuniosity; accordingly it was not appropriate to allow an extension to pursue a dispensation application that was doomed to fail, and security for costs of $6,600 was ordered.
Court Disposition
Application for extension of time declined; security for costs ordered to be paid.
Orders
- Application for an extension of time in which to seek dispensation of security for costs is declined.
- The appellant must pay security for costs in the sum of $6,600 within five working days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
MEEK v HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER [2016] NZCA 426 [9 September 2016]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA280/2016[2016] NZCA 426BETWEEN STUART JAMES MEEKAppellantAND HEALTH AND DISABILITYCOMMISSIONERRespondentCounsel: Appellant in personR E Schmidt-McCleave for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)9 September 2016 at 10.30 amJUDGMENT OF FRENCH J(Application for extension of time to seek dispensation of security for costs)A The application for an extension of time in which to seek dispensation of security for costs is declined.B The appellant must pay security for costs in the sum of $6,600 within five working days.____________________________________________________________________REASONSIntroduction[1] Mr Meek has filed an appeal against a decision of Clifford J in the High Court at Wellington.1[2] Security for costs of the appeal was fixed at $6,600.00.1 Meek v Health and Disability Commissioner [2016] NZHC 1205.[3] Mr Meek applied for security for costs to be dispensed with under r 35(6)(c) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 on the ground he is impecunious. Rule 35(7)(a) requires that such an application be made within 20 working days afterthe notice of appeal is filed. Mr Meek's notice of appeal was filed on 20 June 2016, which meant the deadline for filing his application for dispensation was 18 July 2016. He did not, however, file the application until 28 July 2016.[4] The failure to comply with the time requirement meant the Registrar did not have jurisdiction to consider the application for dispensation. Under the Rules, only a Judge has the power to grant extensions of time and accordingly the matter has been referred to me.2Analysis[5] The period of delay was not long. It was caused by the fact that Mr Meek, who is representing himself, was unware of the time requirement. It has not prejudiced the respondent.[6] Those factors favour granting an extension of time. However, in my view, they are outweighed by the fact the appeal itself lacks merit. It is not an appeal that a solvent appellant would reasonably wish to pursue and therefore little purpose would be served in granting an extension of time for a dispensation application that is doomed to fail. That is so even if Mr Meek were to provide financial information showing he is impecunious, which to date he has failed to do.[7] The decision under appeal was a judicial review of the respondent's handlingof various complaints made to it by Mr Meek regarding Capital & Coast DistrictHealth Board's Mental Health Services. The Judge stated that two aspects of the approach taken by the respondent were of some concern.3 However, they were not matters that warranted any formal declarations or orders for relief.42 Court of Appeal (Civil) Appeal Rules 2005, r 5(2).3 Meek v Health and Disability Commissioner, above n 1, at [65]–[74].4 At [75].[8] Most of the grounds of appeal advanced by Mr Meek detail matters beyond the proper scope of judicial review. Others overlook the scheme of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994. He also seeks remedies (such as payment of compensation and the laying of criminal charges) that either this Court has no power to grant or that are not tenable.[9] The application for an extension of time is accordingly declined. Mr Meek must pay security for costs in the sum of $6,600 within five working days.Solicitors:Health and Disability Commissioner, Wellington for Respondent