Legal Research
Cases
Attorney-General v Reid

Attorney-General v Reid

Case [2012] NZHC 2119 21 August 2012

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CIV 2011-454-254 [2012] NZHC 2119

IN THE MATTER OF an application under section 88B of the
Judicature Act 1908

BETWEEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND
Applicant

ANDJAMES ROBERT REID Respondent

Hearing: 7 - 10 May 2012

Court:Keane J Woodhouse J

Appearances: D N Soper for Applicant
Respondent in person
F M R Cooke QC as Amicus Curiae

Judgment: 21 August 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

This judgment was delivered by on 21 August 2012 at 4pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Date:

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington: david.soper@crownlaw.govt.nz

Copy to:
J R Reid, 2 Vogel Street, Woodville: jrreid@xtra.co.nz
F M R Cooke QC: francis.cooke@chambers.co.nz

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND V JAMES ROBERT REID HC PMN CIV 2011-454-254 [21 August 2012]

[1] In the years since 1984 James Reid has instituted 77 cases before the Courts and before Tribunals, including four appeals to this Court and 10 appeals to the Court of Appeal, most of which have been struck out, dismissed or not pursued.1

[2] Mr Reid was first engaged in the Family Court in questions of custody, access and maintenance concerning his first son J; and then access to, and an issue as to the accuracy of the birth certificate of, his second son S. In those cases he set out as well to vindicate the rights of fathers.

[3] Mr Reid also began a series of cases against the New Zealand Fire Service, of which he was then an officer, and the New Zealand Fire Service Commission, concerning not just his own employment terms and eventual dismissal, but the Service's management and restructuring.

[4] In 1998 the Attorney-General applied to this Court for an order prohibiting Mr Reid from beginning or continuing cases without leave,2 contending that he had brought and persisted in cases that plainly lacked merit. In February 2002 the Attorney-General elected to discontinue, then accepting that Mr Reid had become more restrained. Mr Reid opposed that happening. He wanted that first application dismissed. Even the fact of it, he contends still, carries a taint. He was unsuccessful.

[5] Mr Reid then resumed his existing cases, and began new ones, and he revisited issues decided against him. He wanted especially to get access to documents already denied him judicially, held by the Commission's solicitors under privilege, setting out why he had been dismissed from the Fire Service. He set out to find out what had led Attorney-General to apply to have him declared vexatious.

[6] In more recent years Mr Reid has assumed the role of 'community advocate'. He has brought cases challenging the policies and decisions of the Tararua District Council, and related decisions of the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council. He has become involved, even to the extent of becoming a party, in the cases of others
whom he considers have suffered injustice.

1 Annexure…

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 Reid

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General v Reid [2012] NZHC 2119
Case: [2012] NZHC 2119
Decision Date: 21 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Attorney General of New Zealand applied for an order prohibiting James Robert Reid from instituting or continuing civil proceedings without leave of the Court. The application was made pursuant to section 88B of the Judicature Act 1908. The Court was required to decide whether Reid had persistently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings. The Court held that Reid had done so and made an order prohibiting him from instituting any civil proceeding without leave. The Court found that Reid had instituted 77 cases since 1984, most of which were struck out, dismissed or not pursued. The cases were often baseless, extravagant and scandalous. Reid had made serious and unfounded allegations against judicial officers and counsel and had refused or been constantly unable to pay filing fees and security for costs. Reid's arguments were often worthless and the reasons why he had not pursued cases on appeal was because he had been frustrated judicially. The Court found that Reid displayed all the classic attributes of a vexatious litigant.

Orders