Woods v Kapiti Coast District Council [2013] NZHC 2971 (12 November 2013)

Last Updated: 5 December 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2013-485-8047 [2013] NZHC 2971

UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

IN THE MATTER of an application for judicial review and an application for a declaration

BETWEEN MICHAEL JOHN WOODS Plaintiff

AND KAPITI COAST DISTRICT COUNCIL Defendant

Hearing: On the papers Counsel: M J Woods in person Judgment: 12 November 2013

_{JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J}

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff seeks review of a decision of the Registrar made on 29 October

2013 declining his application for a waiver of court fees.

Background

[2] On 29 October 2013 Mr Woods filed a statement of claim in which he sought judicial review of a decision by the Kapiti Coast District Council to continue adding fluoride to the Waikanae, Paraparaumu and Raumati supply. On the same day he

_{applied for a waiver of the filing fee of $540.}

WOODS v KAPITI COAST DISTRICT COUNCIL [2013] NZHC 2971 [12 November 2013]

Waiver of fees

[3] The Registrar has the power to waive court fees under reg 18 of the High

Court Fees Regulations 2013. The relevant parts of that regulation provide:

18 Power to waive fees

(1) A person otherwise responsible for the payment of a fee required in connection with a proceeding or an intended proceeding may apply to a Registrar for a waiver of the fee.

(2) The Registrar may waive the fee payable by the person if satisfied,—

...

(b) that the proceeding,—

(i) on the basis of one of the criteria specified in regulation 20, concerns a matter of genuine public interest; and

(ii) is unlikely to be commenced or continued unless the fee is waived.

[4] The fee waiver application form asks the following question:

If your application for the fee to be waived or refunded on these grounds is refused, would this affect your decision to commence or continue with the proceeding to which this fee relates?

[5] The question can be answered in one of two ways. The first option is to tick the box saying “No. I would commence or continue with the proceeding anyway.” The second option is to tick the box saying “Yes. If this application is refused, this would affect my decision as to whether to commence or continue with this proceeding.” If the second option is chosen the form requires the applicant to give reasons and, if necessary, attach an affidavit in support.

[6] Mr Woods chose the first option. The Registrar denied the application on the basis that reg 18(2)(b)(ii) was not met.

[7] A decision of the Registrar on the waiver of fees can be reviewed by a Judge or an Associate Judge pursuant to s 100B of the Judicature Act 1908. That section requires applications for review to be filed within 20 working days and for the

review to be conducted by way of rehearing. The review is to be dealt with on the papers unless otherwise directed.

Discussion

[8] Mr Woods’ application for review does not address the reason for the Registrar’s decision. It only reiterates that the proceeding concerns a matter of genuine public interest. I am not required to determine the validity of that claim in this review. As the Registrar found, the second half of the test for waiver under the public interest ground is not met.

_{[9] The application for review is dismissed.}

Solicitors:

Williams J