H v Haden - [2022] NZHC 429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2021-485-347

[2022] NZHC 429

BETWEEN
[H]

Proposed Appellant

AND

GRACE HADEN

Proposed Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

[H] Proposed Appellant in person

G Haden Proposed Respondent in person

Judgment:

11 March 2022

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

(Leave to appeal)

[1] By application dated 14 December 2021 the proposed appellant seeks leave to appeal two decisions made by the High Court, the first made by me in a minute dated
25 November 2021, and the second made by Justice Cull in a minute dated 14 December 2021. The application is made in reliance of rule 20.22 of the High Court Rules 2016.

[2] The application was referred to me by the Registrar as I heard and determined the substantive appeal between the parties.1 By minute dated 8 March I directed the proposed appellant to file written submissions within 10 working days, to be responded to by the proposed respondent within 10 working days, with a remote hearing scheduled if either of the parties sought one, and if not I would deal with the application on the papers. I also asked that the submissions address the jurisdiction for the appeal as it did not appear to me that r 20.22 applied for reasons I explained.

1 Haden v [H] [2021] NZHC 3169.

[H] v HADEN [2022] NZHC 429 [11 March 2022]

[3] The proposed appellant responded by an email to the Registrar in which she indicated that she would not be making formal submissions, that she did not think a hearing was necessary, and requesting the balance of her email be treated as a memorandum. The proposed respondent filed a memorandum contending that the proposed appellant’s applications were unorthodox and should be treated as a nullity. There was no request for a hearing.

[4]In the circumstances I will address the application on the papers.

Jurisdiction

[5] For the reasons I have already outlined in my minute of 8 March 2022 there is no jurisdiction to appeal to the Court of Appeal with leave or otherwise under r 20.22. There were no suppression orders made by the District Court under s 39 of the Harassment Act 1997 in this case, and no appeal against any such decision to this Court. It follows that there is no jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation to any such decision.

[6] As I indicated in my minute the only potential jurisdiction to appeal to the Court of Appeal would arise under s 56(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016.

[7] The proposed appellant has chosen not to address these points in her follow up email/memorandum.

[8] Section 56(3) creates jurisdiction to appeal to the Court of Appeal against any order or decision of the High Court made on an interlocutory application when leave is granted. But the decisions in my minute of 25 November and Cull J’s minute of 14…

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 H v Haden

Details

AGLC: H v Haden [2022] NZHC 429
Case: [2022] NZHC 429
Decision Date: 11 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court was presented with an application for leave to appeal two decisions made in a dispute between [H] and Grace Haden. The first decision was made by Cooke J in a minute dated 25 November 2021, and the second by Justice Cull in a minute dated 14 December 2021. The proposed appellant, [H], sought leave to appeal these decisions relying on rule 20.22 of the High Court Rules 2016. The application was made in person by [H], while Grace Haden, the proposed respondent, also appeared in person. The court was required to determine the jurisdiction for the appeal and whether the leave to appeal should be granted under rule 20.22.

Cooke J found that there was no jurisdiction to appeal under rule 20.22, as no suppression orders had been made by the District Court under s 39 of the Harassment Act 1997, nor was there any appeal against such a decision to the High Court. The only potential jurisdiction to appeal would arise under s 56(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016, which grants leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against any order or decision of the High Court made on an interlocutory application. However, the decisions in question may not fall within that provision. The court also considered the merits of the proposed appeal and found it to be weak, as the High Court had not addressed the merits of the alleged harassment and the matter was subject to other public judgments. Additionally, the leave mechanism was considered a filtering mechanism, and these types of matters did not warrant the attention of the Court of Appeal.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and there would be no order for costs. The reasoning of the court was based on the lack of jurisdiction to appeal under rule 20.22, the potential jurisdiction under s 56(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016, and the weakness of the proposed appeal.

Orders