Dunstan v Bank of New Zealand

[2023] NZHC 378

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-1114

[2023] NZHC 378

UNDER

the Bills of Exchange Act 1908, Bank of New Zealand Act 1971, Bills of Rights Act 1908, and Fair Trading Act 1986

BETWEEN

TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN

Plaintiff

AND

AND

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND

First Defendant

EDDIE (WHETŪ) RANGI

Second Defendant

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Appearances:	T F Dunstan – Plaintiff in person L M Edginton for Defendants
Judgment:	2 March 2023

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

(Application for Court Transcript)

This judgment was delivered by me on 02 March 2023 at 2:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar Date:

DUNSTAN v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND [2023] NZHC 378 [2 March 2023]

[1]        On 27 February 2023, Ms Dunstan made a request that the transcript of the hearing on 7 February 2023 be prepared.

[2]        Ms Dunstan, in her memorandum dated 27 February 2023, said she wanted the transcript to confirm that a text, Goode on Payment Obligations in Commercial and Financial Transactions, referred to in my judgment of 16 February 2023,1 was not referred to by me during the hearing.  I provided that confirmation in my Minute of  1 March 2023, overtaking the need for a transcript on that issue.

[3]        Ms Dunstan’s memorandum at [11], referred to the 16 February 2023 judgment at [40] and I recorded in my Minute that this paragraph of my judgment reflected matters covered in the submissions of the Bank of New Zealand (BNZ).

[4]        In my 1 March 2023 Minute, I explained that it was not the normal practice of the Court to provide a transcript of submissions for an appeal. I invited Ms Dunstan to seek confirmation from counsel for the BNZ in respect of any other matters that she wished to confirm were or were not raised at the hearing on 7 February 2023.

[5]        Ms Dunstan took up  that  invitation  and  in  a  further  memorandum  dated 1 March 2023, Ms Dunstan refers to an email exchange with counsel for the BNZ in respect of an issue she wished to clarify.

[6]        Ms Dunstan then, in her memorandum of 1 March 2023, says she formally seeks the preparation of a transcript under:

a)[her] human right to seek and receive information s14 BORA 1990:

b)High Court Rules 21.10:

…

c)In the interests of Justice and judicial transparency so as not to bring the reputation of justice into disrepute.

d)Under s74 Senior Court [sic] Act 2016

1      Dunstan v Bank of New Zealand [2023] NZHC 200.

[7]        I note, r 21.10 of the High Court Rules 2016 (the Rules) has no application to the preparation of the transcript of a hearing that took place in the High Court. Part 21 of the Rules governs appeals to the High Court by way of case stated.

[8]        Section 74 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 has no application. That section deals with criteria for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

[9]        As to s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA), Ms Dunstan’s reliance on that section is, to say the least, disingenuous. I say that as in a judgment of Powell J dated 20 December 2022, his Honour said:2

As I have previously advised Ms Dunstan in other proceedings, her reliance upon the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (and/or the Official Information Act 1982) as an authority for the production of a transcript is misplaced.

[10]      His Honour in the footnotes to his judgment gave two examples of where this had already been pointed out to Ms Dunstan.

[11]      In the 20 December 2022 judgment, his Honour set out the principles that apply to an application for the preparation of a transcript.

[12]      Having looked at Ms Dunstan’s notice of appeal and the request for the transcript,  I  am  satisfied  Ms Dunstan  has   not   provided   good   reasons   why the preparation of a transcript is required by the interests of justice.

[13]      As already noted, I have confirmed the text referred to above was not discussed at the hearing on 7 February 2023. Ms Dunstan’s notice of appeal asserts my judgment was wrong as a matter of law. She does not require the transcript to advance her arguments in the Court of Appeal.

Decision

[14]Ms Dunstan’s application for a transcript of the hearing is dismissed.

2      Dunstan v Ministry of Social Development [2022] NZHC 3537 at [3].

Costs

[15]There is no order as to costs.

Associate Judge Lester

Solicitors:
Ms Dunstan – Plaintiff in person

Buddle Findlay (for First and Second Defendant)