30 Nov 2021
Leave to appeal was denied because the proposed appeal was an abuse of process and had insufficient prospects of success: the applicant had not complied with prior conditional orders or purged contempt, sought to sidestep those requirements by refiling in the High Court, and raised no question of general importance or miscarriage of justice.
11 Nov 2021
Because the filed documents contained no allegations that could justify the issue of a writ of habeas corpus and, under s14(1A), the Court may refuse applications that are not the appropriate procedure, the purported application was an abuse of process and was struck out.
29 Jul 2021
Because the filing did not identify any judicial decision against which an appeal was sought, it could not be treated as an application for leave to appeal and the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the broad substantive inquiries asserted; accordingly the Deputy Registrar's refusal to accept the document for filing was confirmed.
4 Mar 2021
The Registrar's decision to refuse to accept the originating application was correct because the applicant was not a party to the dispute, did not disclose any sufficient interest in the matter, and was effectively seeking legal advice; a company involved in the Taxation Review Authority proceedings could seek declaratory relief but the present applicant could not, so the review application is dismissed.
10 Nov 2020
Documents emailed to the Christchurch registry on 23 July 2020 were not filed because they were not received by the electronic communications system of the proper registry (Invercargill); filing occurred only when the registrar's direction was given and corrected documents were received on 24 July 2020, which was outside the statutory timeframe to set aside the statutory demands; therefore the application was a nullity.
14 May 2019
The Registrar was directed not to accept the documents for filing because they were unintelligible, did not amount to an originating habeas corpus application under s 7(1), did not seek identifiable relief, and accepting them would be an abuse of the court's process; those defects justified refusal notwithstanding that a prior judicial restriction on filing no longer applied.
7 Mar 2019
The Registrar correctly refused to file the proposed statement of claim because it failed to comply with r 5.11 (including the registry heading requirement in te reo Māori and other heading defects) and, more decisively, because the pleading includes allegations of criminal conspiracy against named individuals which cannot be pursued in a civil High Court proceeding and would be struck out as an abuse of process under r 5.35B and/or r 15.1; accordingly the review is declined and the document must not be accepted for filing in its current form.
3 Dec 2018
The Registrar correctly declined to accept the applicant's filings because the applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory High Court decision without first obtaining leave from the High Court as required by s 56(3) Senior Courts Act 2016; the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to grant leave until the High Court has refused leave under s 56(3) and s 56(5) applies, so the application to review the Registrar's decision is declined and the documents are to be returned to the applicant.
17 Sept 2018
The Registrar's decision to refuse electronic filing was correct under r 31(1) Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005; the application to review that decision is declined and the appellant must file a hard copy notice of appeal and apply for an extension of time to appeal.
6 Dec 2017
The Deputy Registrar correctly refused to accept the notice for filing because the notice failed to provide sufficient information, impermissibly attempted to combine multiple unrelated matters on one form, sought to relitigate matters already finally determined or subject to existing appeals, and included convictions predating the CPA that require the Crimes Act form; accordingly the review is declined.