Davis v McNeilly - [2025] NZHC 2617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2025-412-011

[2025] NZHC 2617

BETWEEN
ARTEMIS INDIGO DELILAH DAVIS

Appellant

AND

HAMISH NICOLL McNEILLY

Respondent

Hearing: 28 August 2025 (by AVL)

Counsel:

Appellant in person (by AVL) No appearance for Respondent

Judgment:

9 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

DAVIS v McNEILLY [2025] NZHC 2617 [9 September 2025]

[1] This appeal is brought by Ms Davis against a decision of Judge Turner made on 7 January 2025.1

[2] Associate Judge Paulsen issued a minute on 10 April 2025, directing that the grounds of the appeal related to the conduct of Judge Turner. The Solicitor-General was to advise if she wished to intervene in the proceeding.2 The appeal was adjourned to 8 May 2025.

[3] On 8 May 2025, Associate Judge Paulsen dealt with the second call of the appeal. His Honour issued a minute dated 9 May 2025.3 His Honour adjourned the appeal to 28 August 2025, and ordered that by then Ms Davis was to have filed any further points on appeal and a common bundle addressing the applicable matters set out at [5(b)] of the 9 May 2025 minute. Ms Davis was also directed to file a memorandum no later than 3.30 pm on 25 August 2025 setting out any directions she sought to have the appeal set down for a hearing.

[4] Ms Davis did not comply with the order to file her further points on appeal or a common bundle as directed.

[5] On 26 August 2025, Ms Davis filed a memorandum seeking leave to appear by AVL (which was granted). Her memorandum asserted Associate Judges did not have jurisdiction to deal with this proceeding. That assertion is based on the fact Ms Davis’ notice of appeal includes in the orders sought, three declarations relating to the conduct of his Honour Judge Turner.

[6] I issued a brief minute on 27 August 2025, advising that the appeal would be called on 28 August 2025. I noted that s 20(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 only prevented Associate Judges dealing with judicial review proceedings. I also noted that

1      Davis v McNeilly [2024] NZDC 13.
2      Davis v McNeilly HC Dunedin CIV-2025-412-011, 10 April 2025 at [7(c)].
3      Davis v McNeilly HC Dunedin CIV-2025-412-011, 9 May 2025.

as this was an appeal, s 20(3) had no application, and I referred to Ingenious Asset Management Ltd v McConnon.4 I note my minute should have referred to s 22(4)(i), not s 20(3). In response to that minute, Ms Davis filed an interlocutory application for leave to appeal.

[7] When the matter came before me in the List on 28 August 2025, I asked Ms Davis when she intended to comply with Associate Judge Paulsen’s orders made on 9 May 2025. Ms Davis advised she did not consider they were valid orders and that she would not be complying with them.

[8] Ms Davis has not sought to challenge the…

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 McNeilly

Details

AGLC: Davis v McNeilly [2025] NZHC 2617
Case: [2025] NZHC 2617
Decision Date: 9 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Artemis Indigo Delilah Davis appealed against a decision made by Judge Turner on 7 January 2025. The appeal was before Associate Judge Lester who considered whether he had jurisdiction to manage the appeal and whether Ms Davis was required to comply with the orders made by Associate Judge Paulsen on 9 May 2025. Ms Davis argued that Associate Judges did not have jurisdiction to deal with the appeal because it involved seeking declarations relating to the conduct of Judge Turner. Ms Davis also sought leave to appeal the Associate Judge's minute of 27 August 2025. The court had to decide whether the Associate Judge had jurisdiction to manage the appeal and whether Ms Davis was required to comply with the orders made by Associate Judge Paulsen on 9 May 2025. The court found that the Associate Judge had jurisdiction to manage the appeal as s 22(4)(i) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 did not limit the jurisdiction of Associate Judges to hear proceedings for a declaration or an injunction generally but only in respect to proceedings in a public context where a statutory power is in issue. The court also found that Ms Davis's jurisdictional protest was misplaced as the Court does not, in the context of a civil appeal, make declarations. Therefore, the proceeding was managed as an appeal. The court declined Ms Davis's application for leave to appeal the Associate Judge's minute of 27 August 2025 as it did not raise an arguable error of law. Ms Davis was required to comply with the orders made by Associate Judge Paulsen on 9 May 2025. If she failed to do so, her appeal would be struck out. The court adjourned the appeal to the List on 25 September 2025 and ordered that Ms Davis was to have complied with the orders made by Associate Judge Paulsen on 9 May 2025 no later than 3.30 pm on 23 September 2025. The court also ordered that Ms Davis was to file the memorandum directed at [7] of Associate Judge Paulsen's minute of 9 May 2025 by the same date.

Orders