Davis v McNeilly - [2025] NZHC 2090

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2024-412-109

[2025] NZHC 2090

BETWEEN
ARTEMIS INDIGO DELILAH DAVIS

Appellant

AND

HAMISH NICHOLL MCNEILLY

First Respondent

KAMALA HAYMAN
Second Respondent

STUFF LIMITED

Third Respondent

Hearing: 6 May 2025

Counsel:

Appellant in Person (via audio-visual link)

J Edwards for Respondents (appearance excused)

Judgment:

29 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 July 2025 at 2.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: .

DAVIS v MCNEILLY [2025] NZHC 2090 [29 July 2025]

Introduction

[1] Artemis Davis appeals an interlocutory decision of Judge Turner of the Dunedin District Court of 22 July 2024, declining, at her request, to adjourn the respondent’s successful application for unless orders in relation to proceedings brought by Ms Davis under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015.1

Background

[2] Ms Davis’ appeal has its genesis in proceedings brought by her in December 2022 seeking orders under the Harmful Digital Communications Act (CIV-2022-120- 360).

[3] On 25 September 2023, Judge Robinson declined Ms Davis’ application for orders that would have required Stuff Ltd, and two of its staff members, to take down and disable public access to certain online articles regarding Ms Davis.2 Her application was for interim orders, strike out and suppression (the first interlocutory decision). In what was subsequently described by Dunningham J as a thorough and carefully reasoned 140 paragraph judgment, Judge Robinson largely declined Ms Davis’ application, although he made two limited orders in her favour.3 Judge Robinson ordered that Ms Davis pay costs to the respondents jointly in the sum of
$1,000.4

[4] On 24 October 2023, in a second interlocutory decision, Judge Robinson made directions for discovery, with an exchange of documents to occur within 30 days,5 and dismissed a further application by Ms Davis (the second interlocutory decision).6 Ms Davis was ordered to pay costs totalling $477.50.7

1      Davis v McNeilly [2024] NZDC 16971.
2      Davis v McNeilly [2023] NZDC 267.
3      Davis v Robinson [2024] NZHC 344 at [8].
4      Davis v McNeilly, above n 1, at [139].
5      Davis v McNeilly [2023] NZDC 23615 at [36].
6      At [30]–[34].
7 At [41].

[5] The respondents complied with the discovery order, Ms Davis did not. That failure resulted in the respondents filing an interlocutory application for unless orders. The decision the subject of this appeal granted the respondents’ unless orders.

District Court decision

[6] In his decision of 22 July 2024, Judge Turner recorded that Ms Davis had, on the morning of the hearing at around 3.30 am, filed “memoranda seeking adjournment”, in which she sought an adjournment of that morning’s hearing of the respondent’s application for unless orders. Ms Davis also filed a document headed “Without-notice interlocutory application for interim relief in respect of judicial corruption”. Ms Davis requested to appear at the hearing by “telephone link”. That request appears to have been communicated to the Judge approximately…

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 2090
Case: [2025] NZHC 2090
Decision Date: 29 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Artemis Davis appeals against a decision of Judge Turner of the Dunedin District Court declining to adjourn the respondent’s successful application for unless orders in relation to proceedings brought by Ms Davis under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. Ms Davis’ appeal has its genesis in proceedings brought by her in December 2022 seeking orders under the Act. On 25 September 2023, Judge Robinson declined Ms Davis’ application for orders that would have required Stuff Ltd, and two of its staff members, to take down and disable public access to certain online articles regarding Ms Davis. Her application was for interim orders, strike out and suppression. In a second interlocutory decision, Judge Robinson made directions for discovery, with an exchange of documents to occur within 30 days, and dismissed a further application by Ms Davis. Ms Davis was ordered to pay costs to the respondents totalling $1,477.50. The respondents complied with the discovery order, Ms Davis did not. That failure resulted in the respondents filing an interlocutory application for unless orders. The decision the subject of this appeal granted the respondents’ unless orders. Ms Davis filed a notice of appeal on 13 August 2024. She appeals Judge Turner’s refusal to adjourn the hearing of 22 July 2024; his refusal to issue a stay of proceedings; and his referral to, and reliance upon, the determinations and orders of Judge Robinson, the subject of his two interlocutory decisions. To the extent Ms Davis directs criticism at Judge Robinson’s interlocutory decision and argues that what she considers to be his flawed reasoning or approach resulted in a miscarriage of justice, it is sufficient to note this is not an appeal from those decisions. Ms Davis has already made the same complaints. The Supreme Court observed that Ms Davis’ intended appeal was a collateral challenge to the correctness of the District Court Judge’s decision in circumstances where an appeal was the appropriate remedy. It follows Ms Davis’ criticism of Judge Turner referring to and acting on Judge Robinson’s findings do not assist her in making out any appeal grounds. Nor does her unsubstantiated allegation of bias against Judge Turner, which largely echo her grievance against Judge Robinson that was held to warrant strike out. I reject the submission that Judge Turner acted with partiality when refusing to allow Ms Davis to appear by telephone link at the hearing on 22 July 2024. It was open to the Judge to refuse Ms Davis’ request considering she notified the Judge of her intention to communicate with the Court by telephone link at what appears to have been a mere 13 minutes before the hearing. Ms Davis knew a time and date had been set for the respondents’ application for unless orders. She was unable to provide any compelling excuse or reason for her failure to appear, or explain the tardiness of her request to appear by audio link. The respondents’ counsel had travelled to Dunedin to argue the application and been put to that cost. Ms Davis had filed written material with the Court, none of which addressed her fundamental non-compliance with the earlier orders, or offered any explanation for her non-compliance. There were no good reasons for not making the unless orders as sought by the respondents. None were articulated in the material Ms Davis put before the Court, nor were any advanced on the appeal before this Court that would suggest that, on the merits, the orders should not have been granted. The breaches of the Court’s orders were obvious. Ms Davis has now been heard by this Court on the unless orders. Apart from embarking on a discursive attack on the integrity of the District Court Judge, she has failed to identify a reason they should not have been issued. I do not consider there is any basis upon which to conclude the orders were unwarranted. Ms Davis submitted that, circumstantially, the District Court’s failure to engage in case management prejudiced her standing in the proceeding, and that the allocation of a conference would have addressed her concerns about Judge Robinson. These were ultimately the same concerns that prompted Ms Davis to bring proceedings against that Judge in the High Court, which she appealed to the Court of Appeal and then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. I do not consider that a case management conference would have assisted Ms Davis in the manner she contends. I can see no basis for Ms Davis’ claim there were no grounds for the District Court to have made any order for costs or discovery “in the proceeding appealed from”. No grounds capable of argument were proffered. The District Court imposed an unless order that Ms Davis pay the costs arising from the first and second interlocutory decisions. It was entirely conventional for the District Court to have made such orders in the ordinary way with costs following the event. Judge Turner also awarded indemnity costs in favour of the respondents. That was a decision open to the District Court Judge. He explained why he made such an order: “Put bluntly, [Ms Davis] ha[d] persistently and deliberately refused, over a lengthy period of time, to comply with the orders of the Court.” Similar comments were made of Ms Davis by Judge Robinson in the first interlocutory decision: “The plaintiff’s conduct of the matter has been far from satisfactory (even allowing for her being a litigant in person). The pleadings, evidence and submissions filed have been prolix, unfocussed, repetitive, and in several respects advanced matters that were plainly irrelevant or unarguable.” An award of costs against the plaintiff is appropriate. I also reject the submission that the costs order made defeated the purpose of the Harmful Digital Communications Act. As noted, a costs order is a general juridical consequence of being the unsuccessful party to a proceeding. I can find no error in the Judge’s decision to award indemnity costs in favour of the respondents. I also cannot find any breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act nor the Human Rights Act in the terms Ms Davis alleges. Lastly, Ms Davis seeks leave to “adduce evidence of other persons having been encouraged to engage in related harmful digital communications, so as for all such persons to be subject to the above orders.” Because I have not granted the orders sought, I see no basis upon which to allow the unparticularised evidence Ms Davis seeks to introduce to be admitted, none of which appears to have any bearing on the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders