VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND [2020] NZSC 135

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND[2020] NZSC 135 [27 November 2020]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC 101/2020[2020] NZSC 135BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMERApplicantAND DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THESUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDRespondentCourt: Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJCounsel: Applicant in personJudgment: 27 November 2020JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for review of the decision of the Registrarto refuse to accept for filing a statement of claim seekingjudicial review is dismissed.B The application for directions is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The applicant has attempted to file with the Supreme Court Registry astatement of claim seeking judicial review of a decision of the Deputy Registrar of theCourt declining his application for a waiver of fees in relation to an application forleave to appeal to this Court against a decision of the Court of Appeal.1 The DeputyRegistrar declined the fee waiver application on the basis that insufficient informationhad been provided as to the financial position of the applicant.1 Re Siemer [2020] NZCA 393.[2] The statement of claim has a banner in bold type at the top of the first page asfollows:This originating application is filed with the Supreme Court due to caseauthority cited at para 4. The Applicant has no objection to this matter beingtransferred to the High Court at Auckland if a judge or judges of this Courtdetermine the High Court to be the appropriate jurisdiction.[3] Paragraph 4 of the statement of claim provides:Mafart & Prieur v Television New Zealand [2006] 3 NZLR 18[2] places thejurisdiction and obligation for remedy against registrars with the judges whocomprise the supervising court.[4] The statement of claim is said to be made under the Judicial Review ProcedureAct 2016 and s 27(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[5] The statement of claim was accompanied by a document headed "Applicationfor Judicial Directions under ss 82(1) and 82(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016". Thisdocument says that the applicant "seeks a reasoned decision as to whether thejurisdiction to judicially review administrative decisions of the Supreme Courtregistrar lies with the High Court or Supreme Court".[6] The Registrar of the Court did not accept the statement of claim for filing. Headvised the applicant that this Court did not have any originating jurisdiction in that,if the applicant wished to pursue judicial review, the application would need to bemade to the High Court.[7] The applicant sought a review by a Judge of the Registrar's decision to refuseto accept the statement of claim for filing. As the matter concerns the Court'sjurisdiction, it has been referred to the present panel for decision.3Judicial review statement of claim[8] This Court's jurisdiction is a statutory jurisdiction under Part 4 of the SeniorCourts Act 2016. It is an appellate jurisdiction. The Court has no jurisdiction to2 Mafart v Television New Zealand Ltd [2006] NZSC 33, [2006] 3 NZLR 18.3 Slavich v R [2015] NZSC 195, (2015) 23 PRNZ 117 at [9].consider an application for judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.In addition, s 8(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act provides that an applicationfor judicial review must be commenced by filing a statement of claim and notice ofproceeding "in the High Court".[9] As the applicant knows from prior experience, an application for judicialreview is not an appropriate procedural step to take in circumstances where theobjective is to challenge a decision of a Registrar or Deputy Registrar. This was madeclear by Clifford J in Siemer v Registrar, Supreme Court.4 In that case Clifford J said:[27] As a matter of principle, therefore, the exercise by the Registrar ofsuch a power, being under the supervision of the Judges who comprise theCourt, is to be reviewed by those Judges. In my view, that form of review isbest understood as being part of the Supreme Court's inherent supervisorypowers relating to matters, such as Mr Siemer's application for access to Courtrecords, properly before it. The Registrar's decision to decline Mr Siemer'srequest will be reviewable by a Supreme Court Judge in like manner as, forexample, the way in which decisions by the Registrar refusing to acceptapplications for leave to appeal are reviewed.[28] Furthermore, as Mr Keith submitted, it is clear that judicial review isnot available to challenge the actions of the Higher Courts.(footnote omitted)[10] If the applicant wishes to challenge the decision of the Deputy Registrar witha view to obtaining a decision favourable to his application, he should seek the reviewof that decision by a Judge of this Court, as he did in relation to the earlier decision ofthe Registrar to reject his application for fee waiver on public interest grounds.[11] The application for review of the Registrar's decision not to accept for filingthe statement of claim is dismissed.Application for directions: s 82 Senior Courts Act 2016[12] The power of a Judge to give directions under s 82 of the Senior Courts Actapplies in relation to "a proceeding before the Supreme Court". There is no proceedingbefore the Court here. So the power is not engaged. The application for directions istherefore dismissed.4 Siemer v Registrar, Supreme Court [2014] NZHC 1179.[13] However, this judgment makes it clear that there is no basis for the applicantto obtain judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act of a decision of aRegistrar of this Court, whether in this Court or the High Court. So the judgment givesthe applicant the guidance he seeks.