Davis v Hussey - [2025] NZHC 2056

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2025-485-443

[2025] NZHC 2056

BETWEEN
ARTEMIS INDIGO DELILAH DAVIS

Appellant

AND

SARAH LEE HUSSEY

First Respondent

BATH STREET TAP ROOM LIMITED

Second Respondent

CIV-2025-485-441

BETWEEN

ARTEMIS INDIGO DELILAH DAVIS

Applicant

AND

WELLINGTON HIGH COURT

Respondent

On the papers:

Counsel:

Appellant/Applicant in person

Judgment:

25 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRAU J

[1] Artemis Davis’ notice of appeal dated 27 March 2025 and statement of claim for judicial review dated 15 July 2025 have been referred to me by the Registrar under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016 (HCR) on the basis that on their face, they are plainly an abuse of the process of the Court.

DAVIS v HUSSEY [2025] NZHC 2056 [25 July 2025]

Relevant law

[2] If I consider that the documents amount to such an abuse of process, under r 5.35B of the HCR, I may make any orders or give any directions to ensure the proceeding is disposed of, or that it proceeds in a manner that complies with the HCR, including striking out or staying the proceeding under r 15.1 of the HCR.

[3] When deciding to strike out a proceeding under r 5.35B of the HCR, the Court must determine:1

(a)whether it would be manifestly unfair to the defendants that they be required to respond; and

(b)whether right thinking people would regard this Court as exercising very poor control of its processes if it were to allow the document to be regarded as a proper document, or if it were to allow the proceeding to proceed further.2

[4] The power under r 5.35B must be exercised sparingly, and only in the clearest of cases, given that the rule contemplates a litigant being denied the fundamental right of access to the courts, with the possibility of the proceeding being halted before it is even served.3

[5] When considering the application of r 5.35B, the Court must take into account the broad public interest, as well as the private interests of individuals who may otherwise be drawn into entirely unmeritorious proceedings. That must be weighed against the right of a litigant to bring proceedings.4

Notice of appeal

[6]The notice of appeal states that Ms Davis is appealing:

1      Mathiesen v Slevin [2018] NZHC 1032, (2018) 25 PRNZ 116 at [6] citing Mathiesen v Fildes
[2017] NZHC 2258.
2      O’Neill v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2023] NZCA 152 at [30].
3      Te Wakaminenga o Nga Hapu ki Waitangi v Waitangi National Trust Board [2023] NZCA 63.
4      Jones v New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Ltd [2021] NZHC 3220 at [20].

against the determinations of the Human Rights Review Tribunal of New Zealand, appealing the entire minute of the Deputy Chairperson dated 25 February 2025, in respect of the Tribunal having acted with reckless disregard for the truth when seeking to pervert the due course of justice in contravention of the provisions of the New Zealand…

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 Hussey

Details

AGLC: Davis v Hussey [2025] NZHC 2056
Case: [2025] NZHC 2056
Decision Date: 25 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Davis v Hussey involves Artemis Indigo Delilah Davis as the appellant and Sarah Lee Hussey and Bath Street Tap Room Limited as respondents. The dispute pertains to an appeal against the decisions of the Human Rights Review Tribunal of New Zealand and a subsequent claim for judicial review. The High Court of New Zealand was called upon to decide whether the appellant's notice of appeal and statement of claim for judicial review constituted an abuse of process, warranting their dismissal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's notice of appeal and statement of claim for judicial review were so lacking in merit that they amounted to an abuse of the court's process. The court had to determine if it would be manifestly unfair to the respondents to require them to respond to the proceedings and whether the court's processes would be poorly controlled if the proceedings were allowed to continue. The court also had to consider the broader public interest in maintaining the integrity of the court's processes against the appellant's right to access the courts.

The court found that the appellant's notice of appeal was based on interlocutory decisions made by the Tribunal, which are not subject to appeal under the Human Rights Act 1993. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal as the decisions were not final determinations. Furthermore, the court found that the statement of claim for judicial review was also an abuse of process, as it was based on a misapprehension and there was no valid cause of action. The court concluded that it would be manifestly unfair to require the respondents to respond and that the court's processes would be poorly controlled if the proceedings were allowed to proceed.

The court struck out the appellant's notice of appeal and statement of claim for judicial review, advising the appellant of her right to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal under the Senior Courts Act 2016.

Orders