TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN v EMMA MARION GIBBS [2023] NZSC 29

TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN v EMMA MARION GIBBS [2023] NZSC 29 [5 April 2023]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROASC 22/2023[2023] NZSC 29BETWEEN TANYA FELICITY DUNSTANApplicantAND EMMA MARION GIBBSRespondentCourt: O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJCounsel: Applicant in personRespondent in personJudgment: 5 April 2023JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.____________________________________________________________________REASONSIntroduction[1] The applicant has filed a notice of application for leave to appeal from ajudgment of the Court of Appeal dismissing her application for review.1 Theapplication for review related to the Deputy Registrar's decision declining to accept anotice of appeal for filing.[2] The notice of appeal the applicant sought to file in the Court of Appeal was achallenge to the decision of the High Court of 27 May 2014 making an order that the1 Dunstan v Gibbs [2023] NZCA 19 (Brown J).respondent be admitted as a barrister and solicitor.2 The applicant was not a party tothat decision.The proposed appeal[3] In challenging the decision declining review, the applicant wishes to argue thatthe decision ignores the impact the respondent has had on her in other, unrelated,proceedings. The submissions filed in support of the notice of application also purportto challenge, out of time, the High Court decision to admit the respondent. Amongstother matters, the applicant says the appeal is necessary to restore public confidencein the judicial system to be fair and without bias.3[4] In declining the application for review, Brown J considered there was nojurisdiction for the Court of Appeal to hear the proposed appeal. Brown J said theLawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 made no provision for appeals from orders ofthe High Court under s 52(4) of that Act admitting a candidate as a barrister andsolicitor. In addition, as the Deputy Registrar noted, the applicant was not a party tothe proceeding. The Court concluded the Deputy Registrar was accordingly correct todecline to accept the notice of appeal for filing.[5] The application for leave does not meet the leave criteria.4 Nothing raised bythe applicant suggests we need to revisit the decision declining to accept her notice ofappeal. Nor does any matter raised support the applicant's claim to be joined as aparty, particularly given the passage of time.[6] Nor can the application meet the threshold for a direct appeal to this Court.5There are no exceptional circumstances advanced that would warrant leave.2 Gibbs v New Zealand Law Society [2014] NZHC 1141 (Keane J).3 This submission appears to rely on recusal by a District Court Judge from other proceedings onthe basis the respondent was married to another District Court Judge sitting in the same Court.4 Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2).5 Section 75.Result[7] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. As the respondent was put tothe cost of filing submissions, there will be an order for costs. The applicant must paythe respondent costs of $2,500.