Chang-Hooker v Rooke

[2012] NZHC 413

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2011-404-6074 [2012] NZHC 413

BETWEEN  SANDY CHANG-HOOKER Applicant

ANDDAVID JOHN ROOKE Respondent

Hearing:         13 March 2012

Appearances: No appearance by or on behalf of Applicant

Respondent in person

Judgment:      13 March 2012

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

COPIES TO: Applicant in person Respondent in person

CHANG-HOOKER V ROOKE HC AK CIV-2011-404-6074 [13 March 2012]

[1]      The applicant, Ms Chang-Hooker, seeks leave to appeal out of time in respect of  judgments  given  in  the  District  Court  at  Manukau  on  22  November  2010,

18 January 2011, 27 June 2011 and 28 July 2011.  The applicant also seeks to stay execution of those judgments pending any appeal.

[2]      The  application  was  set  down  for  hearing  this  morning  by  Wylie J  on

1 November 2011.   The applicant has failed to appear.   Mr Rooke, representing himself as respondent, asks for the applications to be dismissed.

[3]      I have  had  an  opportunity to  read  the  papers  prior  to  coming  to  Court. Ms Chang-Hooker had an insurmountable task on the papers because, firstly, there are inadequate explanations as to why appeal rights were not exercised within time and, secondly, the merits she puts forward are not able to be adjudicated properly on appeal.

[4]      I further note there is one appeal which is within time.  It relates to the last of the series of decisions, made in the District Court on 16 September 2011.   That appeal is due to be heard in this Court on 22 March 2012.  If it is successful, it might give Ms Chang-Hooker a means of re-opening the chain of earlier decisions in any event.

[5]      However,  on  the  merits,  Ms  Chang-Hooker  is  essentially  saying  that Mr Rooke has deliberately breached District Court Rules and has, in her words, lied to the Court on purpose.  In essence, she is submitting that he has obtained decisions of the Court through fraud.  Where those sorts of allegations are made, the proper course is not to seek to appeal to a higher Court but to file fresh proceedings in the Court in which it is alleged the fraud was committed and then seek to prove the fraud.  Of course, failure to do so will meet a stern response when it comes to costs.

[6]      In these circumstances, I am satisfied there is no point in the applications proceeding and I dismiss them accordingly.

[7]      Mr Rooke is again entitled to costs and I award them on a 2B basis.

Brewer J