High Court judge sees no apparent unfairness or failure of process
In a recent case arising from a mortgage, the New Zealand Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request to review the registrar’s decision refusing to accept his application, which sought leave to appeal, for filing.
In Akarana-Rewi v Commissioner of Police, [2025] NZSC 81, the applicant requested that New Zealand’s High Court issue an ex parte injunction to stop a mortgagee from selling a particular property.
A High Court judge conducted a teleconference at the behest of the mortgagee’s counsel, but the applicant refused to participate. Ultimately, the judge refused to issue an injunction upon seeing no apparent unfairness or failure of process.
The applicant appealed to the New Zealand Court of Appeal. However, he failed to prosecute by filing an application for hearing and the case on appeal within three months. The appeal court’s deputy registrar signed a certificate considering the appeal abandoned as of 4 April, by operation of r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.
On 5 May, the applicant brought a notice of application seeking leave to appeal the deputy registrar’s purported decision to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s registrar refused to accept the application for filing upon determining that:
The applicant requested review of the registrar’s decision, which he alleged was corrupt, unfounded, and abusive of process.
The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed the application for review of the registrar’s decision.
The Supreme Court upheld the registrar’s decision denying the application for filing, given that the proposed appeal pertained to the operation of r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules, not an appeal court decision.
The Supreme Court concluded that the applicant could not ask an appeal court judge to review the matter since he did not allege that: