New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review of registrar decisions

Legal area

Court

1 Jul 2021

SIEMER v REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT [2021] NZHC 1604

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1604
Court

High Court

The High Court struck out the Wellington proceeding as an abuse of process because it was materially identical to an earlier proceeding accepted for filing and struck out in the Auckland Registry by Downs J, re‑filed while an appeal against that striking out remained pending; the duplication met the requirements of res judicata/extended doctrine and constituted a collateral challenge that must be struck out under the court's procedural rules.
21 Dec 2017

GEOFFREY JAMES BIRD v THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED [2017] NZCA 627

Citation

[2017] NZCA 627
Court

Court of Appeal

The Deputy Registrar's decision was rightly upheld because the appellant was impecunious, the appeal lacked sufficient merit that a reasonable and solvent litigant would pursue it given the demonstrated hostility and prejudice to beneficiaries, and there was no public interest basis to dispense with security for costs; accordingly security for costs of $6,600 was ordered.
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.
6 Aug 2014

RAZDAN RAFIQ v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2014] NZSC 104

Citation

[2014] NZSC 104
Court

Supreme Court

The recall application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify or substantiate any grounds for recall and the earlier refusal of leave was correctly based on absence of public or general importance and absence of appearance of miscarriage of justice.
14 May 2014

EVGENY ORLOV V THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE NO 1 CA127/2014 [2014] NZCA 182

Citation

(2014) 22 PRNZ 120
Court

Court of Appeal

The Registrar was correct to refuse to consider the late r 35(6) application because the 20 working day period in r 35(7)(a) is not extendable by the Registrar; even on the merits the appellant failed to provide sufficient financial particulars to justify dispensing with security, so the Registrar's decision is upheld and security of $5,880 is required.
15 May 2012

SIEMER v SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND SC 14/2012

Citation

SC 14/2012
Court

Supreme Court

Rule 35 is not impermissibly broad or uncertain because established principles guide its application; the rule is authorised by s66 of the Judicature Act and is a reasonable limit under s5 of the NZBORA; Arnold J applied correct principles in reviewing the registrar and his decision was not in error; consequently the criteria for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court are not met and leave is refused.
27 May 2008

HARRIMAN V DYHRBERG HC AK CIV 2007-404-002471

Citation

openlaw-0aeca88f_81fa_4334_8a9a_981e515d14e9.pdf
Court

High Court

Although the Registrar’s failure to permit further submissions created arguable procedural unfairness, on rehearing the applicant’s delay was unexplained and the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success; accordingly it was fair and reasonable to confirm the Registrar’s refusal to grant leave to appeal out of time.

New Zealand Case Law

SIEMER v REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT [2021] NZHC 1604

GEOFFREY JAMES BIRD v THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED [2017] NZCA 627

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

RAZDAN RAFIQ v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2014] NZSC 104

EVGENY ORLOV V THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE NO 1 CA127/2014 [2014] NZCA 182

SIEMER v SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND SC 14/2012

HARRIMAN V DYHRBERG HC AK CIV 2007-404-002471