Creser v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

[2016] NZHC 1513

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2016-485-262 [2016] NZHC 1513

UNDER

the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and

s 27(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights
Act 1990

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for judicial review under s 16 of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Panel Act

2004

BETWEEN

RICHARD JOHN CRESER Applicant

AND

JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER

First Respondent

JUSTICES ELIAS, TIPPING, McGRATH, YOUNG, ARNOLD, GLAZEBROOK & O'REGAN Second Respondents

On the papers
Judgment:	4 July 2016

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

[1]      Mr Creser has filed a proceeding seeking various orders arising out of the first respondent’s dismissal of a complaint that related to a number of decisions of the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court was named as a second respondent in the proceeding, although no relief was claimed against it.  A memorandum was filed by counsel for the Supreme Court seeking an order removing it as a party pursuant to

s 10(2)(b) of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972.

CRESER v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2016] NZHC 1513 [4 July 2016]

[2]      Mr Creser has now filed an amended statement of claim.   This claim now replaces the Supreme Court as the named second respondent with the names of seven Judges of that Court.   It also adds a cause of action alleging that the second respondents acted in bad faith in refusing to amend the court record in compliance with  the  Public  Records Act  2005.    It  seeks  a  declaration  against  the  second respondents that they are bound by that Act to keep full and accurate proceedings before the Supreme Court.

[3]      Counsel for the second respondents continues to seek an order removing the second respondents as a party.  By direction of the High Court made on 13 June 2016 this is to be determined on the papers.1

[4]      I am satisfied the second respondents (whether as named in the original statement of claim or the second amended statement of claim) should be removed as a named party to Mr Creser’s proceeding and I so order.  This is because, insofar as the proceeding is concerned with reviewing the first respondent’s decision, they are not a necessary party2  and, insofar as Mr Creser seeks to challenge the Supreme Court’s actions in respect of the court record, the matter is not reviewable by this court.3

[5]      The proceeding is to be listed in the Judge’s Chambers List on 11 July 2016.

Mallon J

1      Judicature Amendment Act 1972, s 10(3).

2      See Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2016] NZHC 884 5 May 2016 in respect of a similar proceeding brought by Mr Rabson.

3      See Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2015] NZHC 403 9 March 2015 at [10] and [11].