Davis v Hussey

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2025-412-37

[2025] NZHC 2497

BETWEEN

ARTEMIS INDIGO DELILAH DAVIS

Plaintiff

AND

SARAH LEE HUSSEY

Defendant

AND

ALLISON LAMBERT

Defendant

AND

ANTHONY BOND

Defendant

AND

STEVEN TRELOAR

Defendant

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Second Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	Plaintiff in person
Judgment:	29 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

[1]                 The plaintiff applies for leave to appeal a decision of this Court by which her application for review of a Registrar’s decision was dismissed.

[2]A chronology will provide context.

·     May to August 2024—plaintiff intends to issue four defamation proceedings.

DAVIS v HUSSEY [2025] NZHC 2497 [29 August 2025]

·     May to August 2024—plaintiff presents for filing four sets of documents comprising a statement of claim and a notice of proceeding in form G13;

·      Deputy Registrar requests applicant either to file an interlocutory application or amend the notice of proceeding to form G2;

·     30 April 2025—Deputy Registrar advises proceedings not accepted for filing in absence of the correct documentation;

·     28 May 2025—plaintiff applies for review of Deputy Registrar’s decision;

·     3 June 2025—Osborne J upholds Deputy Registrar’s decision;

·     2 July 2025—plaintiff presents for filing an application for leave to appeal and seeks fee waiver;

·     7 July 2025—Registrar McMillan declines the plaintiff’s fee waiver application;

·     8 July 2025—plaintiff applies for review of the Registrar’s decision;

·     18 July 2025—Preston J dismisses the application for review;1 and

·     21 July 2025—the plaintiff applies for leave to appeal Preston J’s judgment.

What the proposed appeal relates to

[3]                 The series of steps taken by the plaintiff in these proceedings emanate from a common cause—the Registry’s insistence that the plaintiff present for filing sets of documents that comply with the requirements of the High Court Rules 2016. As I explained when upholding the Deputy Registrar’s initial rejection of documents:2

1      Davis v Hussey [2025] NZHC 1987.

2      Davis v Hussey HC Christchurch CIV-2025-412-37, 3 June 2025 (Minute).

[12]      The Deputy Registrar has correctly refused to accept the documents for filing in each of the four matters.

[13]      If a litigant chooses to bring their summary judgment application at the same time as commencing the proceeding with the filing of the statement of claim, Form G13 is the appropriate and required form.

[14]      If, on  the  other  hand,  the  litigant  chooses  not  to  file  a  summary judgment application at the same time as commencing their proceeding, with the  result  there  is  no  notice  of  application  for  summary judgment for the defendant to respond to and no date of first call of the application, then Form G2 is the appropriate and required form.

[15]      The fact that a litigant may apply for summary judgment (with the leave of the court) at a point after the statement of claim itself has been served, is irrelevant to which form of notice of proceeding is required. The identification of the correct…