Davis v Registrar of the High Court at Dunedin
[2025] NZHC 2490
•29 August 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE
CIV-2025-412-85
[2025] NZHC 2490
UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 IN THE MATTER
of an application for review of an action of the Registrar of the High Court
BETWEEN
ARTEMIS INDIGO DELILAH DAVIS
Applicant
AND
THE REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT AT DUNEDIN
Respondent
Hearing: On the papers Appearances:
A I D Davis (Applicant) in person
Judgment:
29 August 2025
JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J
[1] The applicant has submitted for filing an application for judicial review. The application has been referred to me by the Registrar under r 5.35A High Court Rules 2016 for consideration as to whether an order should be made under r 5.35B.
Background
[2] On 19 December 2023, Judge Tuohy in the District Court entered summary judgment for the defendant, Emma Hogg, in proceedings commenced by the applicant.1
1 Davis v Hogg [2023] NZDC 26980.
DAVIS v THE REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT AT DUNEDIN [2025] NZHC 2490 [29 August 2025]
[3] Subsequently, the Judge awarded costs (on a 2B basis) and disbursements to Miss Hogg, in a total sum of $12,766 on the basis that costs follow the event (the Costs Judgment).2 The Costs Judgment was issued on 15 February 2024.
[4] On 15 March 2024, the applicant submitted for filing in this Court a notice of appeal against the Costs Judgment. She recorded that the “remaining documents will be filed on Monday, “Monday” being a reference to 18 March 2024.
[5] On 18 March 2024, the Registry, by email to the applicant, acknowledged receiving the notice of appeal. The email continued:
Please note that an appeal cannot be formally accepted for filing until the filing fee has been satisfied (by way of payment [or] fee waiver) and a copy of the decision being appealed has been received.
For administrative purposes, it would be of assistance if you could submit all documents in one email.
We will await to receive all required documents before processing this application.
[6] The applicant did not reply to the Registry’s email. In relation to the filing fee, she neither paid the fee nor filed an application for fee waiver.
The application for judicial review
[7] By her statement of claim, the applicant states she “filed and served” the appeal against the costs order on 15 March 2024.
[8] She then records the Registrar, as of 21 July 2025, refused to provide her with a CIV number for the appeal or to allocate a case management conference for the appeal (the Failures). She then asserts the Failures constitute a serious breach of Magna Carta 1297 and an abrogation of her right to appeal under s 27(2) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
[9] She finally asserts the Registrar acted “with malice in fact” when causing undue delay and prejudice in her proceedings.
2 Davis v Hogg [2024] NZDC 3025 [Costs Judgment] at [4]–[6].
The application or rr 5.35A and 5.35B High Court Rules
[10] The way in which rr 5.35A and 5.35B operate is conveniently summarised by the authors of McGechan on Procedure:3
If a Registrar believes that a proceeding tendered for filing is plainly an abuse of the procedure of the Court, the Registrar must accept the proceeding for filing if it meets the formal requirements for documents, but may (without releasing the notice of proceeding for service) refer it to a Judge for consideration under r 5.35B. If the Judge is satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the procedure of the Court the Judge may make an order or give directions to ensure that the proceeding is disposed of or proceeds in a way that complies with the Rules, including an order under r 15.1 that the proceeding be struck out or stayed. There is no requirement that a party have an opportunity to be heard before making such an order. As summarised by Churchman J in Boyd v Australia Federal Police [2023] NZHC 2358 at [4] these powers enable the Court to prevent misuse of its process when the procedure being adopted would be manifestly unfair to another party or would otherwise bring the administration of justice into disrepute. In exercising the power to strike out a proposed proceeding as an abuse (which ought to be exercised sparingly), the Court should consider whether it would be manifestly unfair to the respondent that they be required to respond, and whether right thinking people would regard the Court as exercising very poor control of its processes if it were to allow the applicant’s document to be regarded as a proper document.
[11] The Failures, as alleged in the statement of claim, relate to the Registrar not allocating a CIV number for the appeal and not allocating a case management conference. This allegation assumes the applicant had filed a proceeding.
[12] The fundamental flaw in the applicant’s proposed claim is that she has not, in terms of the Rules, “filed” an appeal. Her covering email on 15 March 2024 expressly referred to her filing only one document—the notice of appeal—and recorded other documents were to follow. Rule 5.1A identifies the means by which documents may be filed. Rule 5.1B prescribes when documents are filed. Rule 5.1B(2) identifies the earliest time at which a document is “filed” for the purposes of the Rules. In short, filing does not occur until the prescribed filing fee has been paid or the Registrar has waived the filing fee.
[13] Accordingly, the applicant’s claim is untenable. The fact, as she pleads, that she “filed” a notice of appeal on 15 March 2024 did not constitute a filing of that
3 Jessica Gorman and others McGechan on Procedure (online ed, Thomson Reuters) at [5.35A].
document in the terms required by the Rules, as it was not accompanied by either payment of the filing fee or fee waiver.
[14] In these circumstances the “failure” of the Registrar to provide the applicant with a CIV number for the intended appeal or to allocate a case management conference was plainly within the Registrar’s powers. The intended judicial review is entirely unmeritorious.
[15] I do not overlook the fact the Registrar on 18 March 2024 required the provision of a copy of the appealed decision as well as either fee payment or fee waiver. The Rules do not in fact require the appealed decision to be provided before the appeal is deemed “filed”. But that mistake is immaterial in this case, as the applicant neither paid the filing fee nor applied for fee waiver.
[16] I am therefore satisfied this proceeding involves an abuse of the process of the Court. The Registrar’s conduct accorded with the requirements of the High Court Rules.
Result
[17]The application for review is struck out pursuant to r 5.35B High Court Rules.
[18]The applicant has a right to appeal this decision.
Osborne J
Copy to:
A I D Davis
0