Baker v Manager of the Family Court at Queenstown
[2025] NZHC 1695
•25 June 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE
CIV-2025-425-59
[2025] NZHC 1695
UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2008 IN THE MATTER
of a review of the conduct of the Manager of the Family Court at Queenstown
BETWEEN
ANNA CATHERINE BAKER
Applicant
AND
THE MANAGER OF THE FAMILY COURT AT QUEENSTOWN
Respondent
Hearing: (On the papers) Counsel:
A C Baker in person
Judgment:
25 June 2025
JUDGMENT OF JUSTICE OSBORNE
Introduction
[1] The applicant in this matter, Anna Catherine Baker, is self-represented. Ms Baker has filed a statement of claim seeking judicial review of what Ms Baker says are failures to act by the Manager of the Family Court at Invercargill. The proceeding has been referred to me by the Registrar under r 5.35A High Court Rules 2016 seeking directions under r 5.35B.
BAKER v THE MANAGER OF THE FAMILY COURT AT QUEENSTOWN [2025] NZHC 1695 [25 June 2025]
Rules 5.35A and 5.35B
[2] The way in which rr 5.35A and 5.35B work was accurately summarised by Churchman J in Boyd v Australia Federal Police, where the Judge recorded:1
Rules 5.35A and 5.35B
[2] Rule 5.35A allows a Registrar, if they believe that a proceeding tendered for filing is, on the face of it, “plainly an abuse of the process of the court”, to accept the proceeding for filing but refer it to a Judge for consideration and directions under r 5.35B.
[3] If the Judge is satisfied the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the court, under r 5.35B the Judge may make an order or give directions to ensure that the proceeding is disposed of or proceeds in a way that complies with the rules, including an order under r 15.1 that the proceeding be struck out or stayed. There is no requirement that a party have an opportunity to be heard before making such an order.2
[4] These powers enable the Court to prevent misuse of its process when the procedure being adopted would be manifestly unfair to another party or would otherwise bring the administration of justice into disrepute.3 In exercising the power to strike out a proposed proceeding as an abuse (which ought to be exercised sparingly),4 the Court should consider whether it would be manifestly unfair to the respondent that they be required to respond, and whether right thinking people would regard the Court as “exercising very poor control of its processes if it were to allow the applicant's document to be regarded as a proper document.”5
The claims
[3] Ms Baker is involved in what she describes as on-going proceedings regarding relationship property, financial harm and [REDACTED] disputes, in the Queenstown Family Court. In her claim, Ms Baker alleges that, since at least June 2024, she has instructed counsel and made multiple discovery related applications and engaged in formal correspondence with the Queenstown Family Court Registry and judicial officers. The judicial officers are not named.
[4] It seems the applications and correspondence referred to by Ms Baker sought discovery from a company called Diligent Wealth Limited along with bank statements
1 Boyd v Australia Federal Police [2023] NZHC 2358.
2 High Court Rules 2016, r 5.35B(3).
3 Mathiesen v Fildes [2017] NZHC 2258, (2017) 24 PRNZ 405 at [4].
4 Mathiesen v Slevin [2018] NZHC 1032, (2018) 25 PRNZ 116 at [6], citing Mathiesen v Fildes, above n 3, at [4]; and Reid v New Zealand Trotting Conference [1984] 1 NZLR 8 (CA) at [9].
5 Gorgus v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2020] NZHC 2249.
and other records from Mr Mark Baker, Ms Baker’s ex-husband. Discovery was also sought in relation to relationship property, [REDACTED] and other claims.
[5] Ms Baker’s claim says: “These efforts have included…” and she describes formal letters from a David Simpson acting under her instructions: “Referencing pending and/or filed applications for financial orders”.
[6] Ms Baker pleads that “despite these written submissions” she has not received from the Court any formal acknowledgement—“any docketed minute or procedural ruling” or any order setting down the discovery issue for hearing.
[7] Ms Baker alleges she has contacted court officials and “judicial commissioners” and none of these efforts has led to action or resolution.
[8] The statement of claim does not detail the nature or timing of the applications that are said to have been filed.
[9] The statement of claim pleads four causes of action relating to Ms Baker’s “discovery applications” set out in these terms:
1.Illegality and failure to exercise jurisdiction
The Family Court has failed to determine or even acknowledge discovery applications made under the Family Proceedings Act 1980 and Property (Relationships) Act 1976, breaching its legal duty to ensure just and efficient management of proceedings.
2.Unreasonable delay
The Court’s prolonged silence and inaction—despite repeated, formal attempts to advance the issue—constitute administrative delay, contrary to principles of justice and judicial obligation.
3.Breach of natural justice
The Plaintiff has been denied procedural fairness by being left without any written decision, without hearing, and without explanation—violating her right to be heard and have her applications determined.
4.Breach of legitimate expectation
The Plaintiff, having filed valid applications and supported them with extensive documentation, had a legitimate expectation that the Court would process and address her discovery applications in a timely and lawful manner.
Discussion
[10]It is apparent Ms Baker complains of a failure of the Registry to take action.
[11] It has been recognised that “[a] failure to decide within a reasonable time has been seen as an example of unreasonableness”.6 Judicial review is available in respect of the judicial or quasi-judicial decision of a registrar of the Family Court. However, it is clear omissions of a wholly administrative nature will not readily be susceptible to judicial review.7 The office of Registrar exists under s 62(1) District Court Act 2016, with the statutory duties and powers described in s 63 of the Act. The office of Registrar, a position within the Court, is distinct from that of the Manager (who may be the same person)—the Manager is an employee of the Ministry of Justice exercising a contractual management and administrative role, distinct from his or her exercise of statutory duties and powers as Registrar. Ms Baker’s statement of claim does not identify any statutory duty or power of the Manager that is said to have been breached.
[12] It is not possible from the statement of claim to determine if a formal application to the Court was filed and if so, on what date it was filed; whether it was accepted for filing; or whether there has been a failure by the Registrar within a reasonable time to action such an application.
[13] It is not the role of the Registry to act on references in correspondence to discovery issues in other Court filings and affidavits. The Registry’s role is to process formal applications and other formal documents that are filed in Court, with fee requirements attended to. It is not the Registry’s role to respond to “written submissions” where those submissions would be matters for a judge of the Court to consider in relation to an existing application.
[14] The Registry not actioning letters and complaints to “Judicial Commissioners and Ministry of Justice Officials” or actioning “repeated references to Diligent Wealth discovery issues in other Court filings and affidavits” is not the Registry failing to
6 Judicial Review A New Zealand Perspective (4th ed 2018) at 14.51.
7 McGechan on Procedure at JR5.02(2).
exercise a statutory power of decision within a reasonable time. The Registry does not have an obligation to identify and action such references.
[15] References to the Registry not actioning references to Diligent Wealth Ltd discovery issues and other court filings and affidavits are, in my view, unsustainable as a ground of judicial review.
[16] Then, assuming Ms Baker presents an amended statement of claim for filing, it will be for the Registrar to determine whether the document so presented still raises any issues in terms of r 5.35A.
Outcome
[17] I refrain from making an order under r 5.35B High Court Rules 2016. It is not possible to determine on the basis of the generalised and discursive matters pleaded by Ms Baker whether the concerns which lie behind the pleading are plainly matters that, if pursued, would constitute an abuse of the Court’s process.
[18] Under r 5.21(4) of the High Court Rules, the High Court may, on its own initiative, direct a party to file a properly particularised statement of claim. I view that as an appropriate course here—it will give Ms Baker the opportunity to present for filing a statement of claim. Ms Baker’s amended statement of claim must focus on formal applications filed with the Court in the manner I have described above.
Result
[19]I order:
(a)Ms Baker is to present for filing within five working days an amended statement of claim that expressly identifies the date upon which any formal application to the Queenstown Family Court was made; the proceeding in which that application was made; the date that the application was accepted for filing; and the date of the response, if any, received from the Court;
(b)If Ms Baker comes to the view her claim should correctly be against the “Registrar” rather than the “Manager” the respondent should be named accordingly;
(c)this proceeding is stayed until and unless Ms Baker presents for filing such an amended statement of claim which provides proper particulars of the alleged failure to act by the respondent as identified in (a) above;
(d)in the event Ms Baker does not present for filing such an amended statement within the said five working days, the proceeding will be struck out for want of prosecution.
[20] I direct the Case Officer to forward a copy of this judgment, together with the statement of claim, to the Crown Law Office.
[21] I record the correct legislative reference is to the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2008 (not the (revoked) Judicature Amendment Act 1972 as referred to in Ms Baker’s current statement of claim). The heading to the proceeding, if pursued, is to be as set out in the heading to this Minute. The parties are to be correctly referred to as “applicant” and “respondent”, not “plaintiff” and “defendant”.
Osborne J
Copy to: A C Baker (Plaintiff) in person
0
4
0