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 throughout her affidavit, C describes perceived slights against her and appears to espouse several controversial political opinions. The affidavit is interspersed with references to numerous movies. C uses characters in these movies to suggest that it is J who suffers from schizophrenia, and to suggest that J lives in a

1      High Court Rules 2016, r 5.35B(3).

2      Mathiesen v Fildes [2017] NZHC 2258, (2017) 24 PRNZ 405 at [4].

3      Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd [2013] NZCA 53, [2013] 2 NZLR 679 at [89].

4      Mathiesen v Slevin [2018] NZHC 1032, (2018) 25 PRNZ 116 at [6], citing Mathiesen v Fildes, above n 2, at [4]; and Reid v New Zealand Trotting Conference [1984] 1 NZLR 8 (CA) at [9].

fantasy world. C describes a well-orchestrated “reign of terror” on the part of J and her agents, and suggests that J “is at the helm of this tyranny”.

[7]    These are not the first proceedings C has brought before the Court. C attempted to bring a judicial review proceeding to this Court last year, which was struck out by Isac J under r 5.35B on the basis that it did not identify a reviewable decision or action.5

[8]    The statement of claim and accompanying affidavit in this case do not appear to disclose any reasonably arguable cause of action either. On the face of the documents before me, any cause of action in defamation would not be sustainable. The documents make wide-ranging and serious allegations against J, which do not appear to be supported by any sort of external or objective evidence.

[9]    Overall, I am satisfied that it would be manifestly unfair to require J to defend the claim, and I am also satisfied that right thinking people would consider the Court was exercising poor control of its processes if the proceeding were allowed to continue.

Conclusion

[10]   I make an order under r 5.35B striking out the proceeding as an abuse of process.

[11]I direct that a copy of my decision be served on J, pursuant to r 5.35B(4).

[12]As required by r 5.35B(3), I record that C has a right to appeal my decision.

Churchman J

5      C v Attorney-General [2022] NZHC 3490.