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 orders made on 9 May 2025. Those orders are binding on Ms Davis unless and until they are set aside.

[9]                Ms Davis’ basis for not complying with Associate Judge Paulsen’s orders and underpinning her application for leave to appeal my minute of 27 August 2025, is her belief that because she seeks declarations in her appeal, s 22(4)(i) applies preventing an Associate Judge dealing with case managing her appeal.

[10]Accordingly, the issues I need to deal with are:

(i)the jurisdictional matter;

(ii)the leave to appeal, which is related to (i) above; and

(iii)assuming I conclude I have jurisdiction, Ms Davis’ non-compliance with the orders of Associate Judge Paulsen.

Jurisdiction

[11]On 28 August 2025, Associate Judge Paulsen released the decision

Davis v Hogg. His Honour said:5

[24]     There  is  another  related  reason  why  Ms Davis’s   reliance  upon    s 22(4)(i) of the Senior Courts Act is misplaced. That section does not limit the jurisdiction of Associate Judges to hear proceedings for a declaration or an

4      Ingenious Asset Management Ltd v McConnon [2024] NZHC 2982.

5      Davis v Hogg [2025] NZHC 2470.

injunction generally but only in respect to proceedings in a public context where a statutory power is in issue.6 It is not concerned with a private law action in defamation.

[12]            The authorities relied on by Associate Judge Paulsen are clear. Ms Davis’ current appeal is not a proceeding in a public law context where a statutory power is in issue. Accordingly, I agree with Associate Judge Paulsen that s 22(4)(i) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 has no application. It follows I am satisfied I can deal with case management matters relating to this appeal.

[13]            That finding flows into the second matter, the application for leave to appeal the minute of 27 August 2025. As I have concluded that I have jurisdiction to case manage this appeal. I decline the application for leave to appeal that minute (assuming such was capable of appeal) on the basis it does not raise an arguable error of law.

Dismissing Ms Davis’ application for leave to appeal did not require a hearing.7

[14]            There is a further ground as to why Ms Davis’ jurisdictional protest is misplaced. The Court does not, in the context of a civil appeal, make declarations. Confirmation for this is found in Osborne J’s decision in Davis v The Registrar of the High Court at Dunedin.8 Accordingly, this proceeding is managed as an appeal - not as if it were an application for a declaration.

[15]            As to Associate Judge Paulsen’s directions in his minute of 9 May 2025, this proceeding is adjourned to the List on 25 September 2025. I order that Ms Davis is to have complied with [5] of Associate Judge Paulsen’s minute of 9 May 2025 no later than 3.30 pm on 23 September 2025. That order is made on an unless basis. That is, unless Ms Davis complies with the above order, her appeal will be struck out.

6      Clark v Governor-General (No 1) HC Wellington CIV-2004-485-1902, 2 February 2006 at [22]; applied in Secretary for Internal Affairs v Kilbirnie Tavern Ltd HC Wellington CIV-2007-485-1877, 7 May 2008; and Ingenious Asset Management Ltd v McCannon, [2024] NZHC 2982 at [36].

7      Davis v DNA Property Management Ltd [2025] NZHC 2483 at [10].

8      Davis v The Registrar of the High Court at Dunedin [2025] NZHC 2491 at [15] and [16].

[16]            By the same date, Ms Davis is to file the memorandum directed at [7] of Associate Judge Paulsen’s minute of 9 May 2025.

Associate Judge Lester

Solicitors:

Russell McVeagh, Dunedin

Copy to:
The Appellant