Dai v Professional Conduct Committee of the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants [2023] NZCA 363 (14 August 2023)

Court of Appeal of New Zealand

[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

---

Dai v Professional Conduct Committee of the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants [2023] NZCA 363 (14 August 2023)

Last Updated: 21 August 2023

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA83/2023 [2023] NZCA 363

	BETWEEN	SANDY ZHUJUN DAI Applicant
	AND	PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE OF THE NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS Respondent

Counsel:	Applicant in person R B Moon for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	14 August 2023 at 10.00 am

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

The applications for review are dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

[1] Ms Dai has sought a review of two decisions made by the Registrar.

[2] The first was a decision of 27 March 2023 to decline to accept a second amended notice of appeal for filing on the ground that it introduced an appeal from an interlocutory decision to decline name suppression. The Registrar pointed out that Ms Dai must first seek leave to appeal from the High Court and drew attention to s 56 of the Senior Courts Act 2016.

[3] The Registrar was correct to classify the name suppression judgment as interlocutory and correct to decline to accept an appeal against for filing until the question of leave had been resolved.

[4] The second decision concerned an extension of time for filing the case on appeal under r 43(1B) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. One extension had already been granted under r 43. The Registrar pointed out that the extension was sought on the ground that Ms Dai was seeking leave to appeal or appealing to the Supreme Court against a decision on a review of a Registrar's decision, but no application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been accepted for filing. Rather, a Supreme Court Judge had declined to waive the filing fee for an application for leave to appeal. The Registrar cited Sixtus v Ardern.^[1]

[5] Again, the Registrar was correct. There is no reason to distinguish Sixtus.

[6] The applications for review are dismissed.

---

^[1] Sixtus v Ardern [2023] NZCA 110.