The court also found that the person failed to demonstrate financial hardship
The Supreme Court dismissed a fee waiver application, ruling that the applicant did not demonstrate financial hardship or prove that the case would not proceed without the waiver.
The court found that the applicant did not meet the Supreme Court Fees Regulations 2003 criteria. The applicant sought the waiver based on not receiving legal aid and relying solely on New Zealand superannuation for living expenses.
Initially, the applicant submitted evidence of superannuation entitlement dated September 14, 2021. The deputy registrar requested more recent proof, and the applicant provided a letter from the Ministry of Social Development dated November 25 2024. The letter confirmed that although the applicant was eligible for superannuation, payments were suspended due to receiving a United States pension that exceeded the superannuation entitlement.
The Supreme Court considered whether the applicant qualified for a fee waiver under regulation 5(2) of the Supreme Court Fees Regulations 2003. This regulation requires an applicant to demonstrate either financial hardship preventing payment of the fee or that the case concerns a matter of public interest unlikely to proceed unless the fee is waived. The applicant did not initially claim undue financial hardship or assert that the case involved genuine public interest.
After denying the fee waiver request, the court treated the applicant's "plea for ancillary declaratory relief" as a review application of the deputy registrar's decision. The applicant alleged conflicts of interest and corruption, then submitted a second fee waiver request on a different form, now citing public interest as the basis. The applicant argued that the case would clarify legal issues regarding admitting court judgments as untested evidence in other proceedings, allegedly violating the Evidence Act 2006. The applicant also raised concerns about fairness in the legal process.
The court determined that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of financial hardship as required under regulation 5(3)(b)(ii). The court assumed, without deciding, that the case involved a matter of public interest but concluded that the proceedings would continue even without the fee waiver. The application for leave to appeal remained active and would be assessed on its merits. The court dismissed the application for review.
