Dunstan v Manukau District Court

[2024] NZHC 2274

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-1626

[2024] NZHC 2274

UNDER

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Senior Courts Act 2016

BETWEEN

TANYA DUNSTAN

Plaintiff

AND

MANUKAU DISTRICT COURT

Respondent

Hearing:	on the papers
Representation:	plaintiff self-represented
Judgment:	14 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF JOHNSTONE J

(application for recall)

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 August 2024 at 10 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

DUNSTAN v MANUKAU DISTRICT COURT [2024] NZHC 2274 [14 August 2024]

[1]    By means of a document dated 7 August 2024, Tanya Dunstan applies for recall of my judgment dated 6 August 2024. My judgment refused her leave to bring proceedings seeking review of a Family Court Registrar’s 24 December 2018 decision to decline to accept her application in  that  Court  for  a  temporary  protection  order. Ms Dunstan required leave to bring such proceedings because she is the subject of an order under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, restricting her from bringing proceedings in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court and in the District Court (including the Family Court) without first obtaining leave of a Judge of this Court.1

[2]Ms Dunstan submits that:

(a)I made an obvious error of law, treating her 17 June 2024 document filed with the Manukau Family Court as an application. Ms Dunstan argues that her 10 July 2024 application to this Court sought only to have the Family Court attend to her 17 June 2024 document. As she was not bringing “an application” in the Family Court, my judgment declining her leave is “manifestly unjust”.

(b)It is not appropriate that I should preside as a High Court Judge until she is provided with “letters from the chief High Court Judge and Supreme court judge (sic)” condoning my holding of a certain company directorship.

[3]Addressing these submissions in turn:

(a)There is no doubt Ms Dunstan proposes bringing a proceeding in the Family Court. The fact Ms Dunstan applied for leave from this Court speaks for itself.

(b)I do not hold the directorship of which Ms Dunstan complains, nor any other directorship. She has mistaken me for another person with the same name.

1      Dunstan v Manukau District Court [2024] NZHC 2188.

[4]Ms Dunstan’s recall application is dismissed.

Johnstone J