The Auckland motorist has taken his fight to every level of the court system now.

A three-year battle over an $80 speeding ticket has landed an Auckland man with a legal bill topping $9400.

The Supreme Court on Friday threw out self-represented Peter Richard Prescott's appeal.

It's the latest in a series of legal setbacks for Prescott, after a speed camera in July 2016 snapped a car exceeding a 50kmh limit in West Auckland.

JOHN KIRK-ANDERSON/STUFF Ballooning legal bills have beset an Auckland man who took on authorities in a battle going all the way to the Supreme Court.

A convoluted legal saga followed after police found the plate was registered to Prescott and served an infringement notice on him.

READ MORE:

* $80 speeding ticket grows into $7000 mess after meandering court saga

* Passing lane dilemma: Driver battles ticket after slow lane cars sped up

* Woman fined $150 for driving 85kmh in 100kmh zone

Prescott has argued he was not the driver or registered owner of the allegedly speeding vehicle.

BEJON HASWELL/STUFF A speed camera snapped the car more than three years ago but the dispute has rolled on.

He contested the infringement and had a hearing set with two Justices of the Peace.

He didn't turn up to that hearing.

The JPs found the offence proven, ordering Prescott to pay the $80 fine and $30 in costs.

Prescott appealed to the District Court. But that court dismissed his appeal in March 2018.

Prescott then went to the High Court for a judicial review.

But Justice Pheroze​ Jagose​​ said the proceeding was "an abuse of process" and made a $6943.96 costs order against Prescott.

In February this year, Prescott asked the High Court to recall that judgment.

His request was denied.

Then Prescott tried filing a notice of appeal but that too was rejected.

In April, Prescott asked for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

That notice was filed more than a month late but another judge accepted the delay was due to Prescott being self-represented and unfamiliar with court processes.

Prescott said he was not the driver or registered owner of the vehicle.

The Court of Appeal threw out Prescott's application for a time extension, and denied a costs application.

Prescott then went to the Supreme Court.

According to a new judgment, Prescott argued he wasn't required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was driving the speeding car.

But the Supreme Court said Prescott hit a snag because he did not appear at the hearing with the JPs, and because he sought a judicial review of the District Court decision rather than seeking leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court said Prescott's arguments arose from "irregular procedure" and were "not matters of general or public importance".

The appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal and more costs of $2,500 were awarded to police.

Prescott could not immediately be reached for comment on Friday.