Davis v McNeilly - [2024] NZHC 1270

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2024-412-00039 CIV-2024-412-00044

CIV-2024-412-00051 [2024] NZHC 1270

UNDER the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

ARTEMIS INDIGO DELILAH DAVIS

Plaintiff

AND

HAMISH NICOLL MCNEILLY

Defendant

CIV-2024-412-00047

UNDER

the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

ARTEMIS INDIGO DELILAH DAVIS

Plaintiff

AND

STUFF LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

Self-represented Plaintiff

Judgment:

21 May 2024

Reissued:

27 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

DAVIS v MCNEILLY [2024] NZHC 1270 [21 May 2024]

[1] Ms Davis has issued four proceedings. Three proceedings name Mr McNeilly as defendant (CIV-2024-412-39, CIV-2024-412-44, CIV-2024-412-00051). The fourth proceedings name Stuff Limited as the defendant.

[2] Proceeding CIV-2024-412-00039 against Mr McNeilly was filed on 15 April 2024 and alleged 68 causes of action:

(a)defamation (x46);

(b)misuse of private information (x11);

(c)breach of confidence (x6);

(d)malicious falsehood (x4);

(e)tortious misuse of private information;

[3] The proceeding against Stuff Limited (CIV-2024-412-00047) was also filed on 15 April 2024 and alleges the same 68 causes of action as CIV-2024-412-00039:

[4] Proceeding CIV-2024-412-00044 against Mr McNeilly was filed on 18 April 2024 and alleges five causes of action in defamation. CIV-2024-412-00051 was filed on 14 May 2024 and appears to be replicate CIV-2024-412-00044.

[5] All four proceedings have been referred to me by the Registrar under r 5.35A of the High Court rules (HCR) for consideration under r 5.35B, on the grounds the four sets of proceedings are plainly an abuse of process of the Court.

Jurisdiction

[6] I respectfully adopt the principles as summarised recently by Dunningham J in finding that proceedings issued by Ms Davis against a sitting District Court Judge were an abuse of process:1

1 Davis v Robinson [2024] NZHC 344 at [3]-[6].

[3] High Court Rules 5.35A to 5.35C provide a process for dealing with proceedings that are plainly an abuse of the process of the Court.

[4] Rule 5.35A allows the Registrar to refer it to a Judge for consideration under r 5.35B. Under r 5.35B, if the Judge to whom the proceeding has been referred is satisfied the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court, the Judge may make an order striking out the proceeding or make any orders or directions so that the proceeding is conducted according to the High Court Rules.

[5] The powers contained in these Rules reflect the exercise of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to enable the Court to prevent misuse of Court process when the procedure being adopted would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The right of a litigant to bring proceedings must be weighed against the interests of individual parties who may otherwise be drawn into entirely unmeritorious proceedings.

[6] The power to strike out a proposed proceeding as an abuse of process under the Rules is to be exercised sparingly. In exercising this power, the Court should consider:

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 [2024] NZHC 1270
Case: [2024] NZHC 1270
Decision Date: 21 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Dunedin Registry, Artemis Indigo Delilah Davis filed four defamation proceedings against Hamish Nicoll McNeilly and Stuff Limited. The court considered the proceedings under the Defamation Act 1992 and the High Court Rules. The primary legal issues were whether the proceedings were an abuse of process and whether the court had the jurisdiction to strike them out. The court examined the principles for determining an abuse of process, particularly the rule in Henderson v Henderson, which mandates that all claims related to a single subject matter must be brought together in one proceeding.

The court found that the plaintiff had filed three proceedings against Mr McNeilly and one against Stuff Limited, all alleging the same facts and causes of action. The court concluded that this was an abuse of process because it contravened the rule in Henderson v Henderson. Specifically, proceedings CIV-2024-412-00044 and CIV-2024-412-00051 were struck out as they were duplicative of CIV-2024-412-00039. However, CIV-2024-412-00039 and CIV-2024-412-00047 were accepted for filing, though the court warned that further applications to strike out parts of these proceedings were likely. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under the High Court Rules to prevent misuse of court process and to ensure the administration of justice was not brought into disrepute.

The court's final orders were that CIV-2024-412-00044 and CIV-2024-412-00051 were struck out, while CIV-2024-412-00039 and CIV-2024-412-00047 were accepted for filing. The plaintiff had the right to appeal the decision. The court's reasoning emphasised the need to adhere to the rule in Henderson v Henderson and to avoid fragmenting claims, ensuring that all related claims are brought together in one proceeding.

Orders