Erwood v Holmes

[2017] NZHC 2999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2004-404-7211

[2017] NZHC 2999

BETWEEN

ROBERT ERWOOD

Plaintiff

AND

JOHN ROBIN HOLMES

First Defendant

ANTHONY DAVID BANBROOK
Second Defendant

GRAEME EDWARD MINCHIN

Third Defendant

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Appearances:	Plaintiff in person
Judgment:	5 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

ERWOOD v HOLMES & ORS [2017] NZHC 2999 [5 December 2017]

Copy to:

Plaintiff in person

[1]                 On 27 November 2017, Mr Erwood filed an application for review of a decision of Associate Judge Doogue made on 31 October 2017.1

[2]                 I am advised that Mr Erwood asked the registry for his application to be dealt with on an ex parte basis given its nature. The matter has been referred to me as Duty Judge.

[3]                 In his Minute of 31 October 2017, Associate Judge Doogue refused an application by Mr Erwood for the appointment of an Amicus Curiae to assist him with his litigation.

[4]                 This is not the first time Mr Erwood has applied for the appointment of an Amicus Curiae in this litigation:

·On 27 March 2017, Associate Judge Doogue refused an application.

·On 12 June 2017, Moore J refused Mr Erwood’s application to review Associate Judge Doogue’s decision.

·On 1 October 2017, Mr Erwood attempted to persuade Associate Judge Doogue to reconsider the appointment of an Amicus Curiae, on the grounds Mr Erwood’s medical condition was deteriorating.

·On 6 October 2017, Associate Judge Doogue issued a Minute declining to revisit his decision.

·On 13 October 2017, Mr Erwood sought informal review of Associate Judge Doogue’s decision not to reconsider the appointment of an Amicus Curiae.

1      Erwood v Holmes & Ors HC Auckland CIV-2004-404-7211, 31 October 2017 (Minute).

·On 26 October 2017, Venning J directed that informal application was insufficient.

·Mr Erwood then made a formal application which was rejected by Associate Judge Doogue on 31 October 2017.

[5]                 I have a clear view that the current application to review the decision of Associate Judge Doogue is an abuse of the process of this Court. It is frivolous and vexatious. It amounts to a naked attempt to relitigate matters which have been already litigated. Further, there is no merit at all to Mr Erwood’s underlying situation.

[6]The application is dismissed.

[7]                 I direct the registry, if Mr Erwood attempts to make further application for the appointment of an Amicus Curiae, to refer the matter to a Judge before accepting the application for registration.

Brewer J