Legal Research
Cases
Davis v Hogg

Davis v Hogg

Case [2025] NZHC 2470 28 August 2025

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2024-412-110

[2025] NZHC 2470

BETWEEN
ARTEMIS INDIGO DELILAH DAVIS

Plaintiff

AND

EMMA JULIE HOGG

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

Applicant in person

Judgment:

28 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

(APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE AND TO RESCIND COSTS JUDGMENT)

This judgment was delivered by me on 28 August 2025 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

DAVIS v HOGG [2025] NZHC 2470 [28 August 2025]

[1] Ms Davis commenced this proceeding against Ms Hogg alleging she had been defamed and claiming both a declaration under s 24(1) of the Defamation Act 1992 and damages. The case was at various times case managed by Dunningham J, Associate Judge Lester and me. In a judgment of 4 July 2025, I granted summary judgment in favour of Ms Hogg.1 In a subsequent judgment, I awarded Ms Hogg costs against Ms Davis.2

[2] Ms Davis has filed two without notice applications. The first seeks orders to set aside “every purported minute and judgment which has been issued by Associate Judge Paulsen and Associate Judge Lester in this proceeding”. The second seeks an order rescinding my costs judgment.

[3] The applications are made on the ground that Associate Judge Lester and I have no jurisdiction or powers in relation to any proceeding which seeks a declaration. Ms Davis relies upon s 22(4)(i) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 and r 2.1(3)(a) of the High Court Rules 2016. While she also refers to a range of other statutes, instruments and case law, they do not advance her application.

[4] As noted, the applications were made on a without notice basis. There was no justification for proceeding in that fashion.3 Ms Hogg was entitled to be served with the applications and to be heard. The applications were also not accompanied by a memorandum under r 7.23(3). However, the applications cannot succeed and must be dismissed. For that reason I am not going to direct service upon Ms Hogg.4

[5]For present purposes, the relevant parts of the Senior Courts Act are as follows:

20Associate Judge may exercise certain powers of High Court

(1)An Associate Judge has the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court in relation to the following matters:

(a)an application for summary judgment:

…

1      Davis v Hogg [2025] NZHC 1835.
2      Davis v Hogg [2025] NZHC 2105.
3      High Court Rules 2016, r 7.23(2).
4      Rule 7.46(4).

(3)An Associate Judge may adjourn a proceeding even though the Associate Judge does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceeding.

(4)An Associate Judge has the jurisdiction and powers of the court to deal with costs and other matters incidental to the matters over which the Associate Judge has jurisdiction under this section.

(5)Rules made under section 148 or under any other Act in the same manner as rules under that section may contain any provisions that may be…

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.

Continue reading Davis v Hogg

Details

AGLC: Davis v Hogg [2025] NZHC 2470
Case: [2025] NZHC 2470
Decision Date: 28 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Davis v Hogg, the plaintiff, Artemis Indigo Delilah Davis, filed a defamation suit against the defendant, Emma Julie Hogg, seeking a declaration under section 24(1) of the Defamation Act 1992 and damages. The case was initially managed by Dunningham J, Associate Judge Lester, and Associate Judge Paulsen. In a judgment dated 4 July 2025, Associate Judge Paulsen granted summary judgment in favour of Ms Hogg. Subsequently, in a separate judgment, Associate Judge Paulsen awarded Ms Hogg costs against Ms Davis. Ms Davis filed two without notice applications seeking to set aside all judgments issued by Associate Judge Paulsen and Associate Judge Lester and to rescind the costs judgment. Ms Davis argued that Associate Judges lack jurisdiction over proceedings seeking declarations.

The court considered whether Associate Judges have the jurisdiction to hear and determine summary judgment applications in proceedings seeking declarations or injunctions. The court noted that Associate Judges have the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court in relation to applications for summary judgment, as provided by section 20(1)(a) of the Senior Courts Act. The Supreme Court has affirmed the jurisdiction of Associate Judges to preside over defamation proceedings. The court relied on several precedents, including Cordova v Wenzel, which held that Associate Judges have jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief when entering summary judgment. The court concluded that the jurisdiction of Associate Judges to hear and determine summary judgment applications in proceedings seeking declarations or injunctions is well-established and occurs commonly. Ms Davis's reliance on section 22(4)(i) of the Senior Courts Act was deemed misplaced, as it does not limit the jurisdiction of Associate Judges to hear proceedings for a declaration or an injunction in a private law context such as defamation.

Ms Davis's applications to set aside the judgments and to rescind the costs judgment were dismissed. The court found that Associate Judge Paulsen had jurisdiction to hear the proceeding under section 20(1)(a) of the Senior Courts Act, and there is no relevant exception to these provisions elsewhere in the Senior Courts Act. The court also noted that the applications were made without notice and without proper service on Ms Hogg, which was unjustified.

Orders