Christison v Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki

[2023] NZHC 487

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-001235

[2023] NZHC 487

IN THE MATTER

of an application for summary judgment

UNDER

the High Court Rules 2016

BETWEEN

MARIKA CHRISTISON

Applicant

AND

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF ORANGA TAMARIKI

Respondent

Hearing:

16 February 2023

Appearances:

Applicant self-represented (with T F Dunstan as McKenzie Friend)

L M Jackson for Respondent

Judgment:

13 March 2023

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

(application for transcript)

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 March 2023 at 12:00pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………………………..

CHRISTISON v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF ORANGA TAMARIKI [2023] NZHC 487 [13 March 2023]

[1]        Ms Christison has renewed her application for a transcript. In my Minute of  1 March 2023, I recorded:

[2]        It is not the practice of the Court to routinely direct the preparation of transcriptions in relation to submissions.

[2]I also noted in that Minute that:

[3]        In the event of an appeal, the Court of Appeal does not generally expect there to be a transcription of submissions.

[3]                 I invited Ms Christison to liaise with counsel for Oranga Tamariki to endeavour to achieve agreement in respect of whether something was or was not said during the hearing on 16 February 2023.

[4]                 Ms Jackson, counsel for Oranga Tamariki, advises she has not been approached by Ms Christison to reach agreement in respect of such issues.

[5]                 None of the matters raised in Ms Christison’s memorandum of 8 March 2023 warrant the preparation of a transcript.

[6]In Ms Christison’s memorandum of 8 March 2023 she also says:

The transcript is required to shelter [herself] from further emotional and psychological distress.

[7]                 I acknowledged in my judgment of 27  February 2023,1  the serious issues  Ms Christison has faced and that her dealings with Oranga Tamariki have been traumatic for her.    However, such are not reasons warranting  the preparation of     a transcript.

[8]                 Ms Christison says her proceeding has not been listed for any further hearing. That is correct. Ms Christison’s application for summary judgment has been declined. That leaves her proceeding alive and for her to pursue but, as per the ‘Observation’ section at the end of my 27 February 2023 judgment, Ms Christison may want to pursue a direct settlement with Oranga Tamariki.

1      Christison v The Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki [2023] NZHC 309.

[9]                 Ms Christison refers to her contact with Mr Michael Timmins, the Director of Human Rights Proceedings, after the release of my  27 February 2023 judgment.   Ms Christison complains that Oranga Tamariki are not acting as a model litigant.

[10]              The fact is,  settlement  with  Oranga  Tamariki  may  well  be  possible  if  Ms Christison adopts a more realistic approach  to the level of damages  she seeks.    I described the $1.5 million she seeks as seriously inflated. Ms Christison would be well advised to have regard to Mr Timmins expert experience in this area as to what a reasonable level of settlement would be. No doubt Oranga Tamariki will take a more constructive approach to settlement if the figure Ms Christison seeks is pitched at     a more realistic level.

[11]              Finally, Ms Christison  suggests  that  the  Court  declining  her  request  for  a transcript would represent the Court intentionally preventing her from appealing my 27 February 2023 judgment. That is not correct. Ms Christison does not need the transcript to appeal. If she considers my judgment of 27 February 2023 to be incorrect, then Ms Christison will need to seek leave to appeal.

[12]              I conclude Ms Christison has not demonstrated there are good reasons in the interests of justice for the preparation of a transcript. This conclusion is reached without Ms Christison having  sought  leave  to  appeal.  Without  knowing  what  Ms Christison may wish to advance on appeal, I cannot determine whether there is any useful purpose in directing that a transcript be prepared. In the event an application for leave to appeal is made, the application for a transcript can be revisited at that time, however, the application for leave to appeal would have to demonstrate why the transcript is required.

[13]              Ms Christison will still need to seek agreement from counsel for Oranga Tamariki before pursuing her request for a transcript as unless there is disagreement as to what was or was not said at the hearing, there is little in a transcript being prepared.

Associate Judge Lester

Solicitors:
Rachel Dewar Law, Wellington (for Respondent)

Copy to:

The applicant – Ms M Christison