Foster - [2019] NZHC 373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

[2019] NZHC 373

IN THE MATTER OF An intended application by NEIL FOSTER

On the papers

Judgment:

7 March 2019

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

Introduction

[1] On 22 January 2019 Mr Foster sought to file a proceeding in the High Court at Wellington. The registry rejected the proceeding because it did not comply with r 5.11 and Form G1 of the High Court Rules 2016. Specifically, the cover page of the proceeding did not specify the legislation under which his claim was made, did not provide an address for himself and nor state his occupation, did not provide the full name and address of the intended defendants, and did not include the registry place in te reo Māori.

[2] Mr Foster was given the opportunity to fix these issues but decided not to do so. Instead, Mr Foster has applied for review of the decision to reject his proceeding. He says he does not recognise the Māori language in any form. He also says that he has tried ten ways of finding the surnames of two of the intended defendants but has had no success. If I find in favour on Mr Foster’s application, the Registrar has asked me to consider the proceeding under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules.

RE FOSTER [2019] NZHC 373 [7 March 2019]

The proceeding

[3] Mr Foster’s proposed statement of claim is against the New Zealand Racing Board (as first respondent), “Kit, refused to give surname” (as second respondent) and “Charlie, refused to give surname” (as third respondent). The address stated for all three proposed defendants is “c/o TAB, Trax Bar, Wellington”. The “waistband” on the cover sheet states that it is a statement of claim under s 9 of the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908.

[4]Mr Foster alleges the following:

1)On the 31^st of August 2018 I turned up at the TAB at the Wellington Railway Station where I have been going to every Saturday for approximately the last 5 years, I bought a beer and went to sit down at a table, I was approached by an employee by the name of Olly.

2)I was told that I was no longer welcome and that I would not be served by the staff anymore, there was no reason given for this.

3)I then went to the TAB in Courtenay Place and put my bets on I saw the defendant Kit serving at one of the TAB machines and I approached him and I said I know you’re behind the issues I am having at the Trax TAB, he denied this and I replied that I will be taking legal action to remedy the problem which he has caused.

4)I made numerous calls to the TAB head office and I had various conversations with management at head office, the person I spoke to said that Kit and Charlie were behind the decision not to serve…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Foster and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NZHC 373
Decision Date: 7 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Neil Foster sought to file a proceeding in the High Court at Wellington, which was rejected by the registry for non-compliance with various rules. The court was required to determine whether the decision to reject the proceeding was justified and whether the proceeding could be accepted for filing in its current form. The court considered the specific issues raised by the registry and found that the proceeding did not comply with certain rules, including the requirement to include the registry place in te reo Māori, the full names and addresses of all defendants, and the specific legislation relied upon. The court also noted that the claim against the individuals for alleged criminal conspiracy was not permissible in a civil proceeding in the High Court and would be struck out if filed. The court declined the application for review and held that the registry was not to accept the intended proceeding in its current form. However, it was open to Mr Foster to amend his intended proceeding so that it could be accepted for filing and did not include the claim against Kit and Charlie that must be struck out.

This case highlights the importance of complying with court rules when filing a proceeding. The court emphasised the significance of including the registry place in te reo Māori as a matter of course, as it recognises te reo Māori as an official language of New Zealand and as a taonga of iwi, Māori and New Zealand society. The court also noted that the requirement to include the full names and addresses of all defendants is important to ensure that the court and other parties can identify the parties involved in the proceeding. Additionally, the court emphasised that the claim against the individuals for alleged criminal conspiracy was not permissible in a civil proceeding in the High Court and would be struck out if filed.

Orders