B v B

[2017] NZHC 1233

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980.  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

THE-FAMILY-COURT/LEGISLATION/RESTRICTION-ON-PUBLISHING- JUDGMENTS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-1892 [2017] NZHC 1233

UNDER

the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

BETWEEN

P B Appellant

AND

B J B
First Respondent

A B and S B

Second Respondents

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Counsel:	Appellant in person D Chambers QC for First Respondent
Judgment:	8 June 2017

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

Solicitors:           Peter McCutcheon (Auckland) for First Respondent

Counsel:            Lady Deborah Chambers QC (Copy to Appellant in person)

P B v B J B [2017] NZHC 1233 [8 June 2017]

[1]      Mr B seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal my judgment1 dismissing his appeal against three rulings of Judge I A McHardy in the Family Court.2

[2]      In order to justify a second appeal, there must be some point of sufficient importance to outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal.3    There is no such point in this case.  I am satisfied that this application should be dealt with by me on the papers.

[3]      The decisions of Judge McHardy were interlocutory decisions pending the substantive proceeding.   The substantive proceeding has now been heard and determined.4

[4]      The three decisions of Judge McHardy were:

(a)       The extension of a maintenance order until delivery of the Family

Court decision in the substantive proceedings. (b)      The authorisation of an interim distribution.

(c)       An order that Mr B’s daughters be joined as parties to the substantive proceedings.

[5]      I will not repeat the reasons why I dismissed Mr B’s appeals against these decisions of Judge McHardy.  There was slender justification for bringing them in the first place.   In any event, any further appeal of the second and third orders is made moot by the determination of the substantive proceedings.

[6]      Mr  B  is  self-represented  and,  with  respect  to  him,  lacks  objectivity.    I

understand  Mr  B’s  emotional  investment  in  his  case  and  I  give  the  following

examples of his reasons why leave to appeal should be granted to illustrate the point:

1      PB v BJB [2017] NZHC 715.

2      BJB v PB FC Auckland FAM-2011-004-002022, 4 August 2016 (minute).

3      Waller v Hider [1998] 1 NZLR 412 (CA); Snee v Snee (1999) 13 PRNZ 609 (CA).

4      BJB v PB [2017] NZFC 1817.

7.At the beginning of the hearing dated 28/2/17 Justice Brewer tried to persuade me not to carry on with this matter although I am adversely affected by the appealed decisions. Later His Honour desperately tried to find arguments against my well-founded applications. These are serious reasons to doubt His Honour’s impartiality.

…

11.       First upshot: Considering the sum of Judge McHardy’s actions only a nutter or a biased judge can overlook Judge McHardy’s plan to trick a surprise decision against me by breaching my right to be heard and ignoring the fact that this matter is not particularly urgent.

…

12.Second  upshot:  Justice  Brewer  deliberately  depicts  these  facts wrongly  by  omitting  the  most  relevant  facts  –  stated  above  – enabling His Honour to make his decision conclusive.

13.Third upshot: I experienced the above “bad habit” frequently being involved with the New Zealand legal system since 2011. I would appreciate if the Court of Appeal tries to stop that ...

[7]      Leave to appeal is denied.

Brewer J