DAMIEN GIFKINS AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS - [2024] NZHC 2962

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-002451

[2024] NZHC 2962

BETWEEN
DAMIEN GIFKINS

Applicant

AND

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Judgment:

11 October 2024

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 October 2024 at 11 am Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

GIFKINS v SAMSUNG [2024] NZHC 2962 [11 October 2024]

Introduction

[1] The Registrar has referred to me, under s 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016, an application1 brought by Damien Gifkins seeking an order for discovery from Samsung Electronics Ltd (Samsung). It is not clear that there is a corporate entity in this jurisdiction by this specific name.

[2] Mr Gifkins has filed an affidavit in support of his application and an “Urgent Request for Civil Cyber Crime Barrister and Legal Aid Assistance” plainly recognising that legal advice is needed for such a claim.

[3] Mr Gifkins appears to be focused on remedying security issues with his Samsung Galaxy devices.

Jurisdiction

[4]Rules 5.35A and 5.35B of the High Court Rules provide:

5.35A Registrar may refer plainly abusive proceeding to Judge before service

(1)This rule applies if a Registrar believes that, on the face of a proceeding tendered for filing, the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the court.

(2)The Registrar must accept the proceeding for filing if it meets the formal requirements for documents set out in rules 5.3 to 5.16.

(3)However, the Registrar may,—

(a)as soon as practicable after accepting the proceeding for filing, refer it to a Judge for consideration under rule 5.35B; and

(b)until a Judge has considered the proceeding under that rule, decline to sign and release the notice of proceeding and attached memorandum for the plaintiff or the applicant (as appropriate) to serve the proceeding.

5.35B Judge’s powers to make orders and give directions before service

1 The application filed is titled “Interlocutory Application for Discovery”. However, I elect to treat this application as an originating application as it is the first document filed in relation to the proceedings brought by Mr Gifkins.

(1)This rule applies if a Judge to whom a Registrar refers a proceeding under rule 5.35A is satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the court.

(2)The Judge may, on his or her own initiative, make an order or give directions to ensure that the proceeding is disposed of or, as the case may be, proceeds in a way that complies with these rules, including (without limitation) an order under rule 15.1 that—

(a)the proceeding be struck out:

(b)the proceeding be stayed until further order:

(c)documents for service be kept by the court and not be served until the stay is lifted:

(d)no application to lift the stay be heard until the person who filed the proceeding files further documents as specified in the order (for example, an amended statement of claim or particulars of claim).

(3)Rule 7.43(3) does…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read DAMIEN GIFKINS AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZHC 2962
Decision Date: 11 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves an application by Damien Gifkins against Samsung Electronics, seeking an order for discovery from Samsung. Gifkins appears to be concerned with security issues related to his Samsung Galaxy devices. The application was referred to the High Court under Rule 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016, as the Registrar believed the proceeding was plainly an abuse of the court process. Gifkins has filed an affidavit and an urgent request for legal aid, acknowledging the need for legal advice for such a claim.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the proceeding was an abuse of process and if so, whether it should be struck out. The court examined the application's jurisdiction, standing, and whether it contained a tenable claim or cause of action. Gifkins sought discovery against a non-party, which is only permissible under Rule 8.21 of the High Court Rules if there are current proceedings against a party other than Samsung, which was not the case. The application made no reference to breaches of the Privacy Act 2020, the Crimes Act 1961, or the Telecommunications (Interception and Monitoring) Act 2007, and did not specify the legal basis for seeking discovery.

The court found that the proceeding was an abuse of process due to the lack of jurisdiction, standing, and a tenable claim. The application sought information from international domains and from a person, [REDACTED], whose connection to Gifkins was not explained. The application did not allege any breaches of relevant legislation and sought information about security measures on Samsung devices rather than a valid cause of action. The court concluded that the application could not be amended to resemble a valid statement of claim and that striking out the proceeding was appropriate.

The court struck out the proceeding as an abuse of process, allowing Gifkins the right to appeal this decision under Rule 5.35B(4). This ruling ensures that the court’s resources are not misused and that proceedings are properly founded on valid claims and causes of action.

Orders