Dunstan v Chief Executive, Oranga Tamariki

[2023] NZHC 2499

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-002009

[2023] NZHC 2499

BETWEEN

TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN

Applicant

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, ORANGA TAMARIKI

First Respondent

JOHN DUDLEY NEILL

Second Respondent

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Judgment:	6 September 2023

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Review of Registrar’s decision

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 September 2023 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Copy to:            Applicant

DUNSTAN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, ORANGA TAMARIKI [2023] NZHC 2499 [6 September 2023]

[1]                 The Registrar has referred this file to me as duty Judge. On 5 September 2023 the Deputy Registrar rejected documents presented to this Court by Ms Dunstan. He did so on the basis that the documents were not a compliant application for filing in the Auckland High Court.

[2]Ms Dunstan responded by an email requesting:

Please provide me with the judges directions refusing to accept or direct this URGENT application.

[3]                 Ms Dunstan followed that with a further email on 6 September 2023, concluding:

This application MUST be placed before a judge for an urgent decision (which should have happened 8 weeks ago).

[4]                 I treat Ms Dunstan’s email communications as an application to review the Registrar’s decision.

[5]                 I accept that r 2.11(1)(b), High Court Rules 2016 (HCR), applies in the present case.

[6]                 The Registrar refused to accept the documents presented by Ms Dunstan as they were non-compliant. In doing so the Registrar effectively made two decisions: firstly finding the documents to be non-compliant, and secondly, declining to exercise his discretion under r 5.2, HCR.

[7]                 I have reviewed the documents Ms Dunstan has purported to file. The documents are in the form of an application under the Care of Children Act 2004. On their face they refer to Part 5A, Care of Children Act 2004 and r 62A Family Court Rules 2002. They are in a format which apparently applies in the Family Court. The format and heading of the documents does not comply with rr 5.8–5.10 HCR. The Registrar was correct to consider the documents to be non-compliant.

[8]                 Further, I also accept the Registrar was correct not to exercise his discretion to accept the documents. Quite apart from their non-compliant form, there is the issue of jurisdiction. Section 125 of the Care of Children Act confirms that the purported

applications should be made in the Family Court. That is confirmed by the form of the document Ms Dunstan purported to file.

[9]                 The application to review the Registrar’s decision is dismissed. I confirm the Registrar’s decision not to accept documents from Ms Dunstan.

Venning J