Davis v District Court at Dunedin

[2025] NZHC 3125

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2024-412-122

[2025] NZHC 3125

UNDER

the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER

of the review of a decision of the

District Court that a charging document not be accepted for filing

BETWEEN

ARTEMIS INDIGO DELILAH DAVIS

Applicant

AND

THE DISTRICT COURT AT DUNEDIN

First Respondent

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Second Respondent

Hearing:

(On the papers)

Counsel:

A I D Davis (Applicant) in Person

J N E Varuhas and M G Hyslop for Second Respondent

Judgment:

20 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

[1]                 In this judicial review proceeding, the applicant seeks review in relation to a relatively contained issue, namely whether the District Court erred in refusing to accept a charging document for filing. Since the proceeding was filed, the Court (in June 2025) necessarily directed that the District Court be named as respondent and an amended claim has been filed.

DAVIS v THE DISTRICT COURT AT DUNEDIN [2025] NZHC 3125 [20 October 2025]

[2]                 Since then, the applicant filed (initially) three interlocutory applications, as identified in the Court’s Minute of 27 August 2025. Those applications were allocated a hearing date, with timetable directions made.

[3]                 For her part, the Attorney-General has applied for strike out and security for costs, with that application allocated the same interlocutory hearing date and the subject of amended timetable directions in the Court’s Minute of 25 September 2025.

[4]                 On the same day, the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal the timetable in relation to submissions and evidence, which leave I refused by judgment dated 26 September 2025. (Counsel for the Attorney apprehend that the applicant’s application may have been filed on 24 September as that was the date on the document—it was however filed on 25 September 2025).

[5]                 Given the applicant’s subsequent non-compliance with the timetable directions, the Registry subsequently sent reminders to the applicant at appropriate times as to pending timetable requirements.

[6]The initial response from the applicant to the Deputy Registrar reads:

Kia Ora

The direction is patently unreasonable to such degree as no reasonable and wellminded person would possibly expect compliance.

there will be no compliance, and there has never been any indication given that there would be any compliance.

Stop wasting my time.

Artemis Indigo Davis

[7]                 The applicant followed up on that abusive message by filing on 2 October 2025 an application for leave to appeal against every direction made in the Minute of 25 September 2025 (except in relation to a formal proof fixture) and for a stay of such directions.

[8]                 In a separate memorandum filed on the same day, (but not filed as an application) the applicant purported to seek directions staying all interlocutory applications (except the formal proof matter).

[9]                 Shortly beforehand (on 30 August 2025), the applicant had filed another memorandum criticising directions I had made and alleging matters such as malice and apparent bias. In that memorandum (not an interlocutory application), the applicant had purported to seek “rescindment of allegations” I had made and amendment of timetable directions.

[10]              The Attorney has filed a notice of opposition to the application for leave to appeal and stay of interlocutory directions.

Application for leave

[11]I refuse leave to appeal.

[12]              The present application substantially overlaps with the previous application which was refused on 26 September 2025, and is therefore abusive.

[13]              Had the application not been refused on that basis, it would also have been refused on the basis that it relates to case management directions of a procedural nature.

[14]              As the stay application is parasitic upon the leave application, the stay application is also dismissed.

Matters covered in memoranda

[15]              The Court will not engage with the abusive nature of much of the content of the applicant’s memoranda.

[16]              To the extent the memoranda purported to seek interlocutory directions, it is not appropriate to expect the second respondent to engage with the request. Nor will the Court treat the request as an interlocutory application.

[17]              Given the multiplicity of interlocutory matters the applicant has now sought to raise in relation to what is a confined judicial review application, I refer to what I said at [28]–[30] of the Minute dated 25 September 2025 in relation to Grepe v Loam orders. Given the further application filed since 25 September 2025 and the two memoranda seeking further interlocutory directions, it is no longer appropriate to defer consideration of a Grepe v Loam order to the hearing on 11 December 2025.

[18]              The approach the applicant has been adopting to raising interlocutory issues is plainly abusive. Such is illustrated by the applications for leave to appeal and the fact that, when leave was refused, stays of the extant interlocutory applications have been sought.

Grepe v Loam order

[19]              I order that the applicant is to file no further interlocutory application (or to seek any other interlocutory relief) in this proceeding without leave of the Court.

Interlocutory hearing—unless order

[20]The hearing of scheduled interlocutory applications remains to commence at

10.00 am, 11 December 2025. The Attorney is not required to (but may if she chooses) file submissions in response to any application of the applicant for which the applicant’s submissions have not been filed. Ms Davis has filed (on 2 October 2025) a notice of opposition to the Attorney’s interlocutory application. The Attorney’s submissions were filed on 10 October 2025 as scheduled. Ms Davis’s submissions have not been filed as directed within five days thereafter (by 17 October 2025).

[21]I make an unless order:

(a)unless Ms Davis files and serves by 3.30 pm, Thursday, 23 October 2025 her written submissions in relation to her interlocutory applications and the Attorney’s interlocutory application (scheduled to be heard on 11 December 2025) there is an order (without further order issuing), that:

(i)her said application will be struck out, with costs reserved; and

(ii)she will not be heard on the Attorney’s application which the Attorney shall be entitled to have called on for earlier hearing.

Osborne J

Solicitors:

Crown Law, Wellington (for Second Respondent)

Copy to:
A I D Davis (self-represented Applicant)