D (SC 41/2023) v Auckland District Court

[2023] NZSC 83

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

 SC 41/2023
 [2023] NZSC 83

BETWEEN	D (SC 41/2023) Applicant
AND	AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT First Respondent
N Second Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person H T N Fong and S Cvitanovich for First Respondent No appearance by Second Respondent
Judgment:	7 July 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B         We make no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

1. Ms D has filed an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal.[1]  The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Ms D from a decision and minute of the High Court (the High Court decision and minute) refusing various applications in connection with a judicial review of a District Court decision.[2]  

Background

[1][D] v Auckland District Court [2023] NZCA 130 (Courtney, Venning and Downs JJ).

[2][D] v Auckland District Court [2022] NZHC 3308 (Lang J) [HC judgment]; and [D] v Auckland District Court HC Auckland CIV 2022-404-223, 20 December 2022 (Minute of Lang J) [HC minute]. 

1. Ms D attempted to file a charging document in the District Court to commence a private prosecution against Ms N.  Judge Glubb issued a direction and minute refusing to accept the document for filing.

2. Ms D applied for judicial review of Judge Glubb’s decision.  Her claim was initially struck out as an abuse of process, but the strike-out was overturned on appeal.[3]

   [3]D v Auckland District Court [2022] NZCA 477 (Katz, Wylie and Palmer JJ).

3. Ms D’s application for judicial review was granted in the High Court, and Judge Glubb’s decision not to accept the charging document was set aside.[4]  The question of whether the charging document should be accepted for filing was referred back to the District Court for reconsideration.  In a minute, Lang J rejected several informal applications made by Ms D on other matters.[5]

   [4]HC judgment, above n 2, at [31].

   [5]HC minute, above n 2.

4. Ms D appealed to the Court of Appeal, alleging various errors in the High Court decision and minute and seeking various orders, including compensation.  As indicated above at [1], that appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal and Ms D now seeks leave to appeal to this Court.

Our assessment

1. Ms D’s proposed grounds of appeal relate only to the particular circumstances of her case.  No matters of general or public importance arise.[6]  Further, nothing raised by Ms D suggests that the Court of Appeal’s decision on those points may have been wrong.  Therefore nothing suggests that a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred.[7]

Result

[6]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(a).

[7]Section 74(2)(b).

1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 

2. There is no orders for costs as the first respondent did not file substantive submissions and the second respondent filed no submissions.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for First Respondent