Dunstan v X - [2023] NZHC 2958

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANTS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2023-485-616

[2023] NZHC 2958

IN THE MATTER OF
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990,

Law of Tort, High Court Rules 2016, Human Rights Act 1993 and Senior Courts Act 2016

BETWEEN

TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN

Plaintiff

AND

MS X

First Defendant

AND

JUDGE X

Second Defendant

AND

ATTORNEY GENERAL DAVID PARKER

Third defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person

Judgment:

20 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Rule 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016 – professional negligence claim)

Introduction

[1] The Registrar has referred to me for consideration under r 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016 (the Rules) a statement of claim dated 25 September 2023 filed by Ms Dunstan as plaintiff.

DUNSTAN v MS X & ANOR [2023] NZHC [2958] [20 October 2023]

[2] The proceedings were initially filed in the Christchurch High Court Registry. On 9 October 2023 Osborne J upheld the Registrar’s refusal to accept the documents for filing as they were filed in the incorrect registry.1 The documents were then filed in the Wellington Registry on 11 October 2023.

[3] Ms X is named as first defendant, Judge X is named as second defendant, and the Attorney-General (David Parker) is named as the third defendant.

[4]All the defendants are described as public servants.

[5] The second defendant is a High Court Judge who has dealt with matters relating to Ms Dunstan. The first defendant is the Judge’s wife.

[6] The statement of claim is difficult to follow. It is a mixture of submissions and pasted excerpts from judgments and publications, such as a Te Aka Matua o te Ture Law Commission report on judicial immunity. It includes under the heading “Relevant History” material which appears to be taken from claims by Ms Dunstan in relation to her children and court orders made in relation to them.

[7] Under the heading “First Cause of action” is a copy of s 117 of the Crimes Act 1961, which relates to the crime of corrupting juries and witnesses. The document then goes on to state:2
Issue: 30/08/2023 Judge X breached Ms Dunstans’ right to justice exceeding his jurisdiction and acting unlawfully to obstruct and breach just handling of two separate matters- anonymising the parties, breaching privacy combining them, committing defamation to discredit Ms Dunstans’ legal argument with unrelated [and since overturned] opinions of Kit Toogood and providing legal advice to counsel inviting strike outs under “abuse of process” which is highly unethical and places the reputation of justice into disrepute.

Relief sought: This is a serious breach of trust and judicial function and requires the immediate escalation to the Attorney General and an advisory Panel for the chief justice of the High Court and others to determine appropriate action- most likely the removal of at least two judges from office [Judge X and Associate Judge…

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 Dunstan v X

Details

AGLC: Dunstan v X [2023] NZHC 2958
Case: [2023] NZHC 2958
Decision Date: 20 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Dunstan v X [2023] NZHC 2958 involved Tanya Felicity Dunstan as the plaintiff and three defendants: Ms X, Judge X, and the Attorney General, David Parker. The plaintiff's statement of claim was filed in the Christchurch High Court Registry but was subsequently transferred to the Wellington Registry after the initial refusal to accept the documents due to filing in the incorrect registry. The plaintiff's claims were complex and interwoven with past legal battles involving her children, making the statement of claim difficult to follow. The plaintiff alleged multiple causes of action against the defendants, including breaches of her rights, conspiracy to defeat justice, and professional negligence.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's claims against the defendants were viable and if the proceeding constituted an abuse of the court's processes. Specifically, the court had to assess if the claims were so unmeritorious that they warranted striking out the statement of claim at an early stage. The court also needed to consider the broader public interest in ensuring that the courts were not subjected to unfounded and unsupported allegations against judicial officers.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims were largely incomprehensible and lacked a valid cause of action against any of the defendants. The plaintiff did not identify any specific legal duty or breach by Ms X or the Attorney General. Regarding Judge X, the court noted that he was immune from being sued for acts done in his official capacity, and the plaintiff’s disagreement with his judicial decisions did not constitute a cause of action. Additionally, the extravagant allegations of corruption and deception made by the plaintiff were unsupported by any specific facts. The court concluded that striking out the statement of claim was necessary to prevent an abuse of the court's processes, protect the defendants from the burden of responding to unmeritorious claims, and maintain proper control of court processes.

The court ordered the statement of claim to be struck out against all defendants. It also prohibited the publication of the names of the defendants due to the nature of the allegations made. The plaintiff was notified of her right to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal.

Orders