New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dispensing with security for costs

Legal area

Court

21 Jul 2023

SLAVICH v WELLINGTON DISTRICT COURT [2023] NZCA 314

Citation

[2023] NZCA 314
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for review of the Deputy Registrar's decision is declined because the proposed appeal does not raise issues of public interest and the Deputy Registrar correctly applied the principles that do not justify waiver of fees or dispensing with security for costs given the prior strike out of the proceeding as disclosing no reasonably arguable cause of action and as an abuse of process.
12 Oct 2017

COMPLAINANT A v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2017] NZSC 158

Citation

[2017] NZSC 158
Court

Supreme Court

Applying the Reekie test to the facts, there was no basis to dispense with security for costs; no point of public importance and no appearance of a miscarriage of justice arose, so leave to appeal was refused and costs awarded to the respondents.
15 Jun 2017

MUSUKU v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZCA 255

Citation

[2017] NZCA 255
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for recall is declined because the matters relied on did not amount to the very special reasons required to recall a judgment: the specific submissions now relied upon were not advanced or were not material, counsel's offer to act without remuneration is not determinative of dispensing security, the Court applied the appropriate review function and reached its own conclusions which aligned with the Deputy Registrar's view that the appeal had slim merits, and no extension to provide security is warranted.
17 May 2016

AMANDA ADELE WHITE v CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH [2016] NZSC 55

Citation

[2016] NZSC 55
Court

Supreme Court

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because Wild J correctly applied Reekie to conclude there is no right under s 61A(2) to review single-judge decisions in these circumstances and the proposed appeals did not raise any issue of public or general importance nor any appearance of miscarriage of justice.
4 Aug 2015

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON v REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT [2015] NZSC 123

Citation

[2015] NZSC 123
Court

Supreme Court

The recall application was dismissed because it attempted to relitigate a point the Court had already decided and the applicant provided no new grounds or error warranting recall.
20 Feb 2015

RAZDAN RAFIQ v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2015] NZSC 10

Citation

[2015] NZSC 10
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the Registrar was entitled to consider the applicant's history of numerous unmeritorious proceedings and views of other judges that the litigation amounted to abuse of process, and there was no departure from the principles in Reekie that raised a matter of general or public importance.
9 Oct 2014

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2014] NZSC 138

Citation

[2014] NZSC 138
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Registrar had already decided the application to dispense with security for costs and established Supreme Court authority precludes revisiting such matters under s 61A(1); White J correctly applied Reekie principles in reviewing the Deputy Registrar's decision under s 61A(3) and r 7(2); no risk of miscarriage of justice or issue of general/public importance was shown and the substantive appeal was deemed abandoned, rendering the leave application unsuitable for grant.
20 Feb 2014

RAZDAN RAFIQ v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2015] NZSC 11

Citation

[2015] NZSC 11
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because Harrison J applied the correct principles (as in Reekie), there was no error of principle or law, no new question of general or public importance, and no risk of miscarriage of justice; the associated application for a stay was dismissed as it lapsed.