IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2019-485-696

[2021] NZHC 2607

UNDER Section 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

An application for a general order that

Malcolm Edward Rabson be restrained from commencing or continuing any civil proceedings

BETWEEN

HER MAJESTY’S ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NEW ZEALAND

Applicant

AND

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON

Respondent

Hearing:
28 September 2020

Supplementary memoranda or submissions by the Applicant,
9 October 2020, 11 December 2020, 29 April 2021, 26 May 2021
and 24 June 2021

Supplementary memoranda or submissions by the Respondent, 29 September 2020, 12 October 2020, 31 May 2021 and 30 June

2021.

Appearances:

R S May and K L Kensington for Applicant M E Rabson (self-represented)

Judgment:

30 September 2021

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

Solicitors:
Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington

Copy to:
M E Rabson, Paraparaumu

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v RABSON [2021] NZHC 2607 [30 September 2021]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction [1]

Legal framework [3]

At least two proceedings totally without merit [8]

Submissions [11]

Discussion [17]

The BORA declarations proceeding (Rabson v Attorney-General, CIV-2014-485- 10918, [2013] NZHC 1018) [20]

The High Court decision [20]

My assessment [30]

The Transparency International proceeding (Rabson v Transparency International (New Zealand) Inc, CIV 2014-485-10920, [2015] NZHC 334) [31]

The High Court decision [31]

Subsequent appeals [35]

My assessment [39]

The leave applications proceeding (Rabson v Registrar of Supreme Court, CIV- 2015-485-60, [2015] NZHC 709) [42]
The High Court decision  [42]
Subsequent appeals  [52]
My assessment  [53]
The Erceg proceeding (Re Rabson, SC 13/2016, [2017] NZSC 19) [54] Justice Arnold’s decision  [54]
Subsequent appeals  [55]
My assessment  [58]
The Cabinet proceeding (Rabson v Attorney-General, CIV-2017-485-16, [2017]NZHC 2099) [61]
The High Court decision  [61]
My assessment  [69]
The 2017 Commissioner proceeding (Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner, CIV-2017-485-133, [2017] NZHC 1249) [70]
The High Court decision  [70]
Subsequent appeals  [82]
My assessment  [85]
The 2018 Commissioner proceeding (Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner, CIV-2018-485-618, [2018] NZHC 2053) [87]
The High Court decision  [87]
Subsequent appeals  [91]
My assessment  [92]
The 2019 Commissioner proceeding (Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner, CIV-2018-485-919, [2019] NZHC 2279) [93]
The High Court decision  [93]
Subsequent appeals  [100]

My assessment [102]

The HRRT proceeding (Rabson v Solicitor-General, HRRT08/18, [2018] NZHRRT 37) [103]

The Human Rights Review Tribunal decision [103]

My assessment [108]

Appropriate exercise of discretion [111]

Submissions [112]

Discussion [115]

Terms of the order [121]

Is a general order appropriate? [122]

Submissions [123]

Discussion [126]

When should the order expire? [138]

Result [145]

Introduction

[1] The Attorney-General applies for a general order under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 restraining the respondent, Mr Rabson, from commencing or continuing civil proceedings in any court or tribunal for five years.

[2] The Attorney-General submits that since 2013, Mr Rabson has initiated or attempted to initiate at least 16 distinct proceedings. Within those proceedings, Mr Rabson filed at least 13 appeals to the Court of Appeal…

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.

Continue reading Attorney-General v Rabson

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General v Rabson [2021] NZHC 2607
Case: [2021] NZHC 2607
Decision Date: 30 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Attorney-General applies for a general order under section 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 restraining Malcolm Edward Rabson from commencing or continuing civil proceedings in any court or tribunal for five years. The Attorney-General submits that since 2013, Mr Rabson has initiated or attempted to initiate at least 16 distinct proceedings, all of which were totally without merit. Mr Rabson opposes the application. Gwyn J identified nine proceedings that were totally without merit. The court found that the application met the statutory criteria for a section 166 order and the exercise of the court's discretion was appropriate. The court made an order restraining Mr Rabson from commencing or continuing any civil proceeding in a senior court, another court, or a tribunal, for a period of three years.

Orders