Legal Research
Cases
Davis v Robinson

Davis v Robinson

Case [2024] NZCA 599 18 November 2024

Abuse of Process

Jurisdiction

Res Judicata

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Judicial Review

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA111/2024
[2024] NZCA 599

BETWEEN	ARTEMIS INDIGO DELILAH DAVIS Appellant
AND	DAVID P ROBINSON Respondent

Hearing:	6 November 2024
Court:	Cooke, Fitzgerald and Jagose JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person No appearance for Respondent
Judgment:	18 November 2024 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Jagose J)

Artemis Davis appeals the 28 February 2024 decision of Dunningham J in the High Court at Dunedin, striking out her claim against the respondent under r 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016.[1]

Context

[1]Davis v Robinson [2024] NZHC 344 [Judgment under appeal].

Rule 5.35B entitles a Judge to (among other things) strike out a proceeding if “satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the court”.[2] An abuse of process is the “improper use of [the court’s] machinery”,[3] or the use of a court process “for a purpose or in a way which is significantly different from [its] ordinary and proper use”.[4] Judges have a duty to prevent such abuses, but nonetheless:[5]
The power under r 5.35B must be exercised sparingly, and only in the clearest of cases. Given that the rule contemplates a litigant being denied the fundamental right of access to the courts, with the possibility of the proceeding being halted before it is even served, the abuse must be clear beyond doubt from reading the claim.
[2]High Court Rules 2016, r 5.35B(1).
[3]Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd [2013] NZCA 53, [2013] 2 NZLR 679 at [87], citing Simon Goulding, DB Casson and William Blake Odgers Odgers on Civil Court Actions (24th ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1996) at [10.15].
[4]Te Wakaminenga o Nga Hapu Ki Waitangi v Waitangi National Trust Board [2023] NZCA 63, [2023] NZAR 180 at [14]–[15], quoting Attorney-General v Barker [2000] 1 FLR 759 (QB) at 764.
[5]Te Wakaminenga o Nga Hapu Ki Waitangi v Waitangi National Trust Board, above n 4, at [15].
The respondent was not required to, and did not, participate in the appeal.

Background

The respondent holds a warrant of appointment as a Judge of the District Court. On 25 September 2023, the respondent delivered a judgment determining certain of Ms Davis’ interlocutory applications in a proceeding brought by her against third parties under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 (the 2015 Act).[6]
[6]Davis v McNeilly [2023] NZDC 267.
Ms Davis brought proceedings in the High Court, alleging that the respondent’s decision was defamatory of her in 14 specified aspects, one of which also constituted malicious falsehood and comprised the respondent’s misfeasance in public office. She sought damages of $100,000 under each head of contested publication, declarations of the respondent’s liability to herself and “His Majesty King Charles”, and an injunction requiring the respondent’s recusal from any proceeding to which she is party.

Judgment under appeal

Having reviewed the respondent’s “thorough and carefully…

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 Robinson

Details

AGLC: Davis v Robinson [2024] NZCA 599
Case: [2024] NZCA 599
Decision Date: 18 November 2024 at 10.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Artemis Indigo Delilah Davis appealed against the decision of Dunningham J, who had struck out her claim against David P Robinson under r 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016. The appeal was heard by Cooke, Fitzgerald and Jagose JJ. The court was required to decide whether the High Court Judge had erred in striking out Ms Davis's claim as an abuse of process. The appeal court found that the striking out was justified. The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal found that the Judge was correct to strike out Ms Davis's claim as an abuse of process. The court held that Mr Robinson was entitled to judicial immunity from suit for the decisions he made in his capacity as a judge, including the interlocutory applications he decided in Ms Davis's previous proceeding. The Court of Appeal held that it was indisputable that Mr Robinson had jurisdiction to make the decisions he made, and therefore he was entitled to judicial immunity. This immunity meant that Ms Davis's claim against Mr Robinson was an abuse of process. The Court of Appeal also found that the claim was abusive in its content, with prolix pleadings, untenable claims, and scurrilous allegations. Allowing such a claim to proceed would bring the justice system into disrepute.

The Court of Appeal found that the Judge did not err in striking out Ms Davis's claim as an abuse of process. The court held that Ms Davis's claim against Mr Robinson was an abuse of process because Mr Robinson was entitled to judicial immunity for the decisions he made in his capacity as a judge. The court also found that the claim was abusive in its content, with prolix pleadings, untenable claims, and scurrilous allegations. Allowing such a claim to proceed would bring the justice system into disrepute. The Court of Appeal held that the Judge did not err in striking out the claim.

Orders