Drew v Registrar of the District Court at Porirua [2014] NZHC 1678 (17 July 2014)

Last Updated: 23 July 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2014-485-1135 [2014] NZHC 1678

BETWEEN	RICHARD ALLAN DREW Applicant
AND	THE REGISTRAR OF THE DISTRICT COURT AT PORIRUA Respondent

Hearing:	On Papers
Counsel:	Applicant in Person (assisted by Mr Drew Snr) No appearance (with leave) for Respondent
Judgment:	17 July 2014

_{JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J}

[1] This is an application to appeal a decision of the District Court declining a review of a Registrar’s decision to issue a warrant to seize property by way of unpaid fines.

[2] The car was seized in relation to fines owed by a Mr Shane Cavanagh. At the time the car was registered to Mr Cavanagh, although as Mr Drew Snr points out, it was only an unconfirmed registration. Mr Drew says he was the true owner and filed a claim in relation to it. As the law then provided for (it has since been changed) the Registrar proceeded to sell the car prior to Mr Drew’s claim being considered. This all occurred in 2010.

[3] In late 2013 Judge Walker considered an application to review the decision. This was more then three years after the car had been sold. In a full reserved decision, the Judge noted he had no power to overturn the Registrar’s decision

_{because the warrant has been executed and the car sold.}

DREW v DISTRICT COURT AT PORIRUA [2014] NZHC 1678 [17 July 2014]

The matter was called in a chambers list as it was not apparent whether what had been filed was an appeal or an application to judicially review Judge Walker. It was confirmed at that hearing that an appeal was intended, and the matter was set down for hearing today.

[5] Unfortunately, there is no jurisdiction for such an appeal.¹ This meant Mr Drew and Mr Drew Snr were understandably frustrated having expected a further day in Court. That is always regrettable but ultimately it is always an applicant’s responsibility if an appeal is filed for which there is no jurisdiction. The Court cannot do other than apply the law.

[6] The application is strictly speaking an application for leave to extend the time in which to appeal. I decline that application because there would be no jurisdiction for the appeal.

[7] I also observe that I would have declined the application for lack of merit. It would be an appeal against Judge Walker’s decision that he also had no power to review the Registrar at the point in time in which the application came before him. Mr Drew wishes to address the merits, but again cannot overcome the point that the underlying application to review the Registrar was also one that was ineffective by the time it was made. It was too late for that type of application regardless of the merits.

[8] Finally, I observe the proceedings being brought – review of Registrar and appeal from that – could not assist in the ultimate goal which is, as I understand from

_{Mr Drew Snr, compensation for consequential losses caused by the sale.}

¹ Page v Ministry of Justice [2013] NZHC 1309; Underhill v Police [2014] NZHC 1367.

Simon France J