Szekely v North [2018] NZCA 58 (20 March 2018)

Last Updated: 9 April 2018

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA249/2017 [2018] NZCA 58
BETWEEN	JOZSEF GABOR SZEKELY Appellant
AND	SAMUEL RAYMOND NORTH First Respondent DEBBIE VIVIAN NORTH Second Respondent

Counsel:	Q S Haines for Appellant S Iorns for First Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	20 March 2018 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF ASHER J
(Review of Registrar’s Decision)

The application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision is declined.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

[1] This is an application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision refusing to refund the appellant’s scheduling fee of $2,700.
[2] The appellant, Mr Szekely, paid the scheduling fee on 10 November 2017. On 24 November 2017 Mr Szekely sought a refund of that fee on the basis that he is suffering, or is now likely to suffer, undue financial hardship as a result of paying the fee. The Deputy Registrar considered that he was unable to make a decision on the application without further information. Mr Szekely filed information as to his income and his current bank account balances on 5 December 2017.
[3] On 18 December 2017 the Deputy Registrar declined to refund the fee. The Deputy Registrar acknowledged that Mr Szekely had a large amount of debt, largely comprising legal fees and court costs. He also acknowledged that Mr Szekely’s savings and income had decreased. Nonetheless, the Deputy Registrar considered that Mr Szekely’s income was sufficient, and he had funds available, to afford the scheduling fee. On 10 January 2018 Mr Szekely sought a review of that decision on the basis that his circumstances have changed.

Discussion

[4] Mr Szekely’s changed circumstances are that he and his partner are now expecting a child. He states that his partner is now dependant on him financially, as will be the child. He also refers to various other costs associated with the arrival of the child, such as the need to look for new suitable accommodation and the costs of food and medicine.
[5] Undoubtedly, the arrival of a child will have a financial impact on Mr Szekely. However, that impact is prospective. Mr Szekely has not produced any evidence that the advent of the pregnancy has had an immediate financial effect such that a refund of the scheduling fee is justified. The latest bank statements available to the Court are those that were filed on 5 December 2017. We agree with the Deputy Registrar’s assessment that those bank statements show that Mr Szekely is in a position to afford the scheduling fee. He has not demonstrated immediate financial hardship such that a refund of the scheduling fee is justified.
[6] We accept, as did the Deputy Registrar, that Mr Szekely has a large amount of debt, comprising legal fees and costs arising out of the litigation he seeks to continue on appeal. However, the information that he has provided demonstrates that his income, and his current balance, are sufficient to enable him to afford the scheduling fee.

Result

[7] The application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision is declined.

Solicitors:
QH Law, Levin for Appellant
Hoggard Law Ltd, Wellington for First Respondent