Adamson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner - [2023] NZHC 3888

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2023-485-151

[2023] NZHC 3888

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016, the Fair Trading Act 1986, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Privacy Act 2020

IN THE MATTER

of a decision of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner dated 30 March 2023

BETWEEN

IAN ADAMSON

Applicant

AND

THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER

Respondent

Hearing: 30 November 2023

Appearances:

Applicant in person

K I Murray as counsel assisting
N M H Whittington for the Respondent

Judgment:

22 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 December 2023 at 3:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors / Parties:
The Plaintiff
Mr NMH Whittington, Barrister, Wellington Mr K I Murray, Barrister, Wellington

ADAMSON v THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2023] NZHC 3888 [22 December 2023]

Background

[1] The applicant is a litigant in person. He has been extensively involved in proceedings in the Family Court in relation to his granddaughter. He is unhappy with various decisions made by the Family Court Judge who has presided over the Family Court litigation (the Family Court Judge).

[2] Mr Adamson has tried many different ways to challenge the decisions of the Family Court Judge and the actions of the various lawyers involved for other parties in the proceedings.

[3] In a comprehensive decision dated 24 September 2021,1 Cooke J dismissed an appeal from an early decision of the Family Court Judge. Included among the grounds advanced by the applicant in that appeal was that the Family Court Judge had pre-determined the outcome of the Family Court proceedings.

[4] The Family Court proceedings remain on foot and are, as yet, not finally resolved. The applicant has attempted to judicially review decisions of the Family Court Judge. He has been told by several High Court Judges, about the inappropriateness of pursuing judicial review proceedings when the Family Court hearing to which the proceedings relate is still underway and has not yet been concluded.2 The judicial review proceedings have been stayed pending resolution of the Family Court proceedings.

[5] In addition to challenging the decisions of the Family Court Judge by appeal and judicial review, Mr Adamson has also commenced various proceedings against a number of other parties involved in the court case. He has attempted to bring a private prosecution against the other party to the Family Court proceedings alleging the commission of criminal offending. The District Court refused to grant leave for that proceeding to be commenced.3

1 Adamson and Jones v Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki [2021] NZHC 2530.
2 [Adamson] v Family Court HC Wellington CIV-2023-485-102, 5 April 2023 (minute of Palmer J); [Adamson] v Family Court HC Wellington CIV-2023-485-102, 18 April 2023 (minute of Edwards J); [Adamson] v Family Court HC Wellington CIV-2023-485-102, 23 May 2023 (minute of Radich J); [Adamson] v Family Court

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Adamson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] NZHC 3888
Decision Date: 22 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ian Adamson sought judicial review of two decisions of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner dismissing his complaints about the Family Court Judge who had presided over Family Court proceedings in which Mr Adamson was involved. The Commissioner dismissed Mr Adamson’s complaints because they challenged the legality or correctness of judicial decisions, which is outside the Commissioner’s jurisdiction. The Commissioner also considered Mr Adamson’s complaints about the manner in which the Family Court Judge spoke to him in court, finding that his tone was not as Mr Adamson had alleged. The Commissioner’s findings were not irrational and his decision to take no further action was justified. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered the relevant statutory provisions prohibiting the Commissioner from challenging the legality or correctness of any judicial decision or considering complaints about judicial decisions if there is a right of appeal or judicial review. It considered the nature of Mr Adamson’s complaints which related to the tone and manner of the Family Court Judge’s speech. The Court concluded that these complaints fell within the scope of the statutory prohibitions on the Commissioner’s jurisdiction. Even if they did not, the Commissioner had properly considered the complaints and found them to be without merit. The Court found no error in law and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The Court reserved the question of costs, directing that if the parties could not agree on costs, any application was to be filed and served by 30 January 2024 with a reply to be filed by Mr Adamson within 10 working days. The Court would then deal with the costs on the papers.

Orders