Bridge v The King - [2025] NZHC 89

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2025-485-54

[2025] NZHC 89

UNDER the Crown Proceedings Act 1950, and in accordance with r 5.28 and r 5.29 of the High Court Rules 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

a right of action in tort

BETWEEN

DEBORAH JANE BRIDGE

Plaintiff

AND

THE CROWN

Defendant

Hearing: On the Papers

Applicant in Person

Judgment:

7 February 2025

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[1] On 24 January 2025 Deborah Jane Bridge (the Applicant) emailed the High Court at Wellington a document described as being ‘Self represented applicant filing to be heard in the High Court, Wellington NZ’. This document was accompanied by a notice described as a Notice of Proceedings.

[2] The Registrar has referred these documents to me as duty Judge pursuant to r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2026 (HCR).

[3] Rule 5.35A authorises a Registrar to refer proceedings which the Registrar believes to be plainly an abuse of the process of the Court, to a Judge for consideration under HCR r 5.35B.

BRIDGE v THE CROWN [2025] NZHC 89 [7 February 2025]

[4] HCR 5.35B authorises a Judge to whom the Registrar referred such proceedings to make various orders including an order that the proceeding be struck out. HCR 5.35B(3) provides that if a Judge makes an order pursuant HCR 5.35B(2) on his own initiative without giving the person who filed the proceeding an opportunity to be heard, the order must contain a statement of that person’s right to appeal against the decision.

Are the proceedings plainly abusive?

[5] The term ‘plainly abusive proceeding’ is not defined in HCR 5.35A but the Courts have held that this term encompasses proceedings which are an obvious misuse of the Court’s process’.1

[6] The Court of Appeal has articulated what are described as seven basic rules of civil justice against which a judge can assess the ‘reasonable limits to recourse to law’. These have been described as being:2
Proceedings must involve claims by persons with a legitimate interest in the subject of the dispute.

All persons likely to be affected directly by a judgment should be joined in the proceeding.

Claims cannot be undertaken by instalment: the claim must bring all his or her claims on a subject together in the one claim.

Claimants who fail usually must pay a substantial contribution to the other side’s costs.

The judgement is determinative of all issues in the proceeding and must be implemented unless stayed pending an appeal.

Generally there is only one right of appeal, but a right to seek leave to bring a second appeal.

Once those rights are exhausted, that is that and the final judicial determination is not to be subverted by collateral challenge through further proceedings on the same subject matter.

1 See Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Limited [2013] NZCA 53, [2013] 2 NZLR 679 at [89].
2 Faloon v Planning Tribunal at Wellington [2020] NZCA 170.

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 Bridge v The King

Details

AGLC: Bridge v The King [2025] NZHC 89
Case: [2025] NZHC 89
Decision Date: 7 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Deborah Jane Bridge initiated proceedings against the Crown under the Crown Proceedings Act 1950, asserting various causes of action including negligence, medical negligence, defamation, discrimination, and unlawful police actions. The primary issue before the Court was whether these proceedings constituted a plainly abusive misuse of the Court's process, warranting their dismissal under HCR 5.35B. The Court examined whether the proceedings involved legitimate claims, identified defendants correctly, and articulated viable causes of action and appropriate relief. The Court found the proceedings to be misconceived, lacking in identifiable defendants, valid causes of action, and relief that the Court could grant. Furthermore, the proceedings were deemed incomprehensible and raised challenges to legislative measures rather than tortious actions against the Crown.

The Court considered the criteria for determining whether proceedings are plainly abusive, which includes whether it would be manifestly unfair for respondents to have to respond and whether the Court's processes would be poorly controlled if the proceedings were allowed to proceed. The Court held that the proceedings were an abuse of process because they were incomprehensible, misconceived, and raised issues inappropriate for tortious claims against the Crown. The relief sought was also unavailable to the Court, as it included demands for investigations, apologies, and legal actions against individuals not party to the proceedings. The Court concluded that striking out the proceedings was necessary to prevent an abuse of the Court's process.

The Court struck out the proceedings pursuant to HCR 5.35B(2)(a) as they were an abuse of the Court's process. It advised Ms Bridge of her right to appeal the decision. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of ensuring that proceedings are properly drafted, involve legitimate claims, and seek relief the Court can grant.

Orders