BETWEEN PONSONBY CHAMBERS (ON BEHALF OF TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN) Applicant AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Respondent MINISTER OF JUSTICE Second Respondent ANDREW KIBBLEWHITE Third Respondent

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 104/2024
[2024] NZSC 136

BETWEEN	PONSONBY CHAMBERS (ON BEHALF OF TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN) Applicant
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Respondent MINISTER OF JUSTICE Second Respondent ANDREW KIBBLEWHITE Third Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Miller JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person No appearance for Respondents
Judgment:	9 October 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing the application for leave to appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

“Ponsonby Chambers” has sought to file an application for leave to appeal from a decision of Blanchard J in the High Court,[1] seeking to bypass the Court of Appeal.[2] The Registrar has referred it to us for direction, having regard to apparent irregularities.
[1]Ponsonby Chambers (on behalf of Tanya Dunstan) v Attorney-General HC Auckland CIV‑2024‑404‑2281, 16 September 2024. The decision was made in a minute declining to entertain a habeas corpus application on the ground that it related to an order made against Ms ‍Dunstan under s ‍166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, which was not an order to detain anyone.
[2]Pursuant to s 69 of the Senior Courts Act and s 16(1A)(a) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2011.
Ponsonby Chambers is not a barristers’ chambers. It appears to be a reference to Ponsonby‍, a limited liability company owned and directed by Tanya ‍Dunstan. The application for leave to appeal is said to have been brought on behalf of “the appellant”, Ms Dunstan. It appears to have been signed by “Mr X”, while the decision of Blanchard J records “M Rolls” as solicitor. Melanie Rolls is a name used by Ms ‍Dunstan. She appears to have used it to file the High ‍Court proceeding in which the decision she now wishes to appeal to this Court was made.
The application is a plain abuse of process. Ms Dunstan is the subject of an order under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 and cannot bring a proceeding without first obtaining leave.[3] She cannot evade that order by the device of using Ponsonby ‍Chambers to file the application on her behalf and what appears to be an alias. She appears to have attempted to mislead the Registrar by doing so.
[3]Re Dunstan [2023] NZHC 3176 at [15].
In these circumstances the Court will not consider the application for leave to appeal. The Registrar is directed not to accept it for filing.[4]
[4]See Greer v Smith [2015] NZSC 196, (2015) 22 PRNZ 785 at [6].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was presented with an application for leave to appeal from a decision made in the High Court by Ponsonby Chambers, acting on behalf of Tanya Felicity Dunstan. The application sought to bypass the Court of Appeal and directly appeal a ruling by Blanchard J, which declined to entertain a habeas corpus application. This application was referred to the Supreme Court by the Registrar due to apparent procedural irregularities. The High Court decision pertained to an order made against Ms Dunstan under section 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, which was not considered an order to detain anyone.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the application for leave to appeal could be accepted and processed given the apparent irregularities. Specifically, the court had to determine if Ponsonby Chambers, which is not a recognised legal entity, could legitimately file the application on behalf of Ms Dunstan. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether Ms Dunstan, who is under a court order restricting her ability to bring proceedings without leave, could circumvent that order by using an alias and a non-existent entity to file the appeal. The court also had to consider whether the application was an abuse of process, given the attempt to mislead the Registrar.

The court found that the application was indeed an abuse of process. It determined that Ponsonby Chambers was not a legitimate legal entity and that the use of an alias to file the application was an attempt to circumvent the court order restricting Ms Dunstan from bringing proceedings without leave. The court concluded that Ms Dunstan had attempted to mislead the Registrar, and as a result, the application for leave to appeal would not be considered. The Registrar was directed not to accept the application for filing.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established