Davis v Robinson - [2024] NZHC 344

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2024-412-18

[2024] NZHC 344

BETWEEN
ARTEMIS INDIGO DELILAH DAVIS

Plaintiff

AND

DAVID P ROBINSON

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person

Judgment:

28 February 2024

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 28 February 2024 at 9.30 am, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

[1] The plaintiff, Artemis Davis, has filed this proceeding against a District Court Judge, David Robinson.

DAVIS v ROBINSON [2024] NZHC 344 [28 February 2024]

[2] The proceeding has been referred to me under High Court Rules 2016, r 5.35A by Registry staff, for consideration under r 5.35B, on the grounds that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court.

Jurisdiction to address proceedings that are an abuse of the Court process

[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.1

[6] The power to strike out a proposed proceeding as an abuse of process under the Rules is to be exercised sparingly.2 In exercising this power, the Court should consider:3

(a)whether it would be manifestly unfair to the respondents that they be required to respond; and

(b)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.

1      Jones v New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Ltd [2021] NZHC 3220 at [20].
2      Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd [2013] NZCA 53, [2013] 2 NZLR 679 at [89].
3      Mathieson v Slevin [2018] NZHC 1032, (2018) 25 PRNZ 116 at [6].

The proceeding

[7] The plaintiff’s proceeding has its genesis in a reserved judgment of the District Court. In that judgment Judge Robinson declined Ms Davis’ application for orders under s 19 of the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 which would require Stuff Ltd, and two of its staff members, to take down and disable public access to certain online articles regarding Ms Davis.

[8] In…

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] NZHC 344
Case: [2024] NZHC 344
Decision Date: 28 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Artemis Davis, the plaintiff, filed a proceeding against David Robinson, a District Court Judge, in the High Court of New Zealand, Dunedin Registry. The plaintiff's proceeding stems from a reserved judgment by Judge Robinson, who declined Ms Davis' application for orders under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. In the judgment, Judge Robinson largely declined Ms Davis' application, making only two limited orders in her favour. Unsatisfied with the judgment, Ms Davis seeks to file a proceeding in the High Court, pleading 15 causes of action in defamation, as well as a cause of action in malicious falsehood and a claim of misfeasance in public office against Judge Robinson.

The court had to determine whether the proceeding was an abuse of process, which would allow it to be struck out. The court considered whether it would be manifestly unfair to the respondents 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 plaintiff's document to be regarded as a proper document. The court concluded that the proceedings were an abuse of process because the judge was entitled to judicial immunity from suit, as provided by the District Court Act 2016. The court also found that the proceedings were an abuse of process in that they sought to challenge the correctness of the judge's decision where a clear right of appeal was available, and in that the proceedings were prolix, unfocused, repetitive, and advanced matters that were plainly irrelevant or unarguable.

In terms of r 5.35A, the court was satisfied that these proceedings were an abuse of process of the Court and, pursuant to r 5.35B(2)(a), struck them out. The court also directed that a copy of this decision be served on the plaintiff, Ms Davis, and notified her of her right to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal within 20 working days of this decision.

Orders