C v J - [2023] NZHC 2155

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CIV-2023-442-032

[2023] NZHC 2155

BETWEEN
C

Applicant

AND

J

Respondent

On the papers:

Judgment:

11 August 2023

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1] The applicant in this matter, C, is self-represented and has filed a document in which she advances a claim of defamation against the defendant, J. This matter has been referred to me by the Registrar under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016 seeking directions under r 5.35B.

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

C v J [2023] NZHC 2155 [11 August 2023]

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.1

[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.2 In exercising the power to strike out a proposed proceeding as an abuse (which ought to be exercised sparingly),3 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.”4

C’s proposed proceeding

[5] C’s documents are prolix and discursive. She makes wide-ranging allegations against J across a range of interactions covering several decades of involvement with each other as well as numerous events that have happened to C for which J is said to be responsible. It is impossible to discern from the material before me a clear and consistent complaint. As far as it is possible to make out a cause of action, it appears to be that C alleges that J’s “rumours and gossip” caused a psychiatrist colleague of hers to incorrectly diagnose C with schizophrenia. C alleges that the person suffering from schizophrenia is in fact J.

[6] C has produced an affidavit in support of her statement of claim. It is 56 pages long and essentially one long block of text. C’s affidavit covers a wide range of topics, most of which appear to be irrelevant to any claim that could be said to relate to J. At various points…

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 C v J

Details

AGLC: C v J [2023] NZHC 2155
Case: [2023] NZHC 2155
Decision Date: 11 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, C, the self-represented applicant, filed a defamation claim against J, the respondent, which was referred to the court by the Registrar under Rule 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016. The court was tasked with determining whether the proceeding was plainly an abuse of the court's process, warranting directions under Rule 5.35B. The primary legal issue before the court was whether C's claim should be struck out as an abuse of process, considering the lack of a clear and consistent complaint, the wide-ranging and unsupported allegations, and the absence of a reasonably arguable cause of action.

The court found that C's documents were excessively long, discursive, and prolix, making it difficult to discern a clear and consistent complaint. C's allegations were wide-ranging and spanned several decades, with numerous events attributed to J's alleged responsibility. The primary cause of action appeared to be that J's "rumours and gossip" led to C being incorrectly diagnosed with schizophrenia by a psychiatrist colleague, though C herself suggested that it was J who suffered from the condition. The court considered whether it would be manifestly unfair for J to have to defend the claim and whether right thinking people would regard the court as exercising poor control of its processes if the proceeding were to continue. The court concluded that the proceeding was indeed an abuse of process and struck out the claim under Rule 5.35B. The court also directed that a copy of the decision be served on J and recorded that C had a right to appeal the decision.

Orders