BETWEEN PONSONBY CHAMBERS (ON BEHALF OF TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN) Applicant AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Respondent MINISTER OF JUSTICE Second Respondent ANDREW KIBBLEWHITE Third Respondent
[2024] NZSC 136
•9 October 2024
| 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) |
| AND | ATTORNEY-GENERAL |
| Court: | Glazebrook, Ellen France and Miller JJ |
Counsel: | Applicant in person |
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].
1