Haden v Wells - [2012] NZHC 31

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2008-404-5500

CIV-2010-404-2050

NZHC [2012] 31

BETWEEN GRACE HADEN First Plaintiff

ANDVERISURE INVESTIGATIONS LIMITED
Second Plaintiff

ANDNEIL EDWARD WELLS First Defendant

ANDWYN HOADLEY Second Defendant

ANDGRAEME JOHN COUTTS Third Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel: E Orlov for First and Second Appellants
ND Wright for Respondent

Judgment: 1 February 2012

JUDGMENT OF RODNEY HANSEN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 February 2012 at 4.30 p.m., pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ………………………….

Solicitors: Equity Law, P O Box 8333, Symonds Street, Auckland 1150
Brookfields, P O Box 240, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140

GRACE HADEN V NEIL EDWARD WELLS HC AK CIV-2008-404-5500 1 February 2012

[1] Mrs Haden applies for a review of a Registrar’s decision refusing to file documents tendered for filing. The documents which Mrs Haden sought to file in person comprise what is described as “Application for review section 4 Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and Stay of enforcement, section 17.29 High Court Rules Due to new evidence” (the application for review) and a supporting affidavit.

[2] The review of the Registrar’s decision is sought under r 2.11 of the High

Court Rules which relevantly provides:

2.11 Review of Registrar's decision

(1) An affected party to a proceeding or an intended proceeding may apply to a Judge by interlocutory application for a review of any of the following:

...

(b) a Registrar's refusal to file a document tendered for filing:

...

(2) The Judge may, on review, make any orders he or she thinks just.

...

The application for review was made within the time limit of five working days prescribed by subparagraph (4) of the rule.

[3] Mrs Haden’s application for review is a further attempt to challenge a judgment given by Judge Joyce QC in the District Court at Auckland.[1] He found Mrs Haden had defamed the defendant, Mr Wells. He awarded general damages of
$50,000 and exemplary damages of $7,500. I dismissed Mrs Haden’s appeal[2] and

refused leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.[3] The Court of Appeal rejected Mrs

Haden’s application for special leave to appeal.[4]

[1] Wells v Haden [2008] DCR 859.

[2] Haden v Wells HC Auckland CIV-2008-404-5500, 20 November 2009.

[3] Haden v Wells HC Auckland CIV-2008-404-5500, 23 June 2010.

[4] Haden v Wells [2010] NZCA 591.

[4] Mrs Haden also sought to challenge the District Court judgment by way of judicial review proceedings. Her application was dismissed by Allan J.[5]

[5] Haden v Wells HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-2050, 25 November 2010.

[5] Mrs Haden’s application is in the form of a memorandum to the Court in which she refers to new evidence which has come into her possession which she says “is material in every respect and impacts significantly on the validity of the statement of claim”. She states that it shows that “[Mr Wells] has been less than honest with the Court resulting in gross injustice” to the plaintiffs. The application goes…

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 Haden v Wells

Details

AGLC: Haden v Wells [2012] NZHC 31
Case: [2012] NZHC 31
Decision Date: 1 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Haden v Wells, Mrs Haden sought a review of a decision by the Registrar to refuse to file documents she tendered for filing. These documents were described as an “Application for review section 4 Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and Stay of enforcement, section 17.29 High Court Rules Due to new evidence” and a supporting affidavit. Mrs Haden’s application was a further attempt to challenge a judgment given by Judge Joyce QC in the District Court at Auckland, who found that Mrs Haden had defamed the defendant, Mr Wells, and awarded general damages of $50,000 and exemplary damages of $7,500. The High Court had previously dismissed Mrs Haden’s appeal against this judgment, and the Court of Appeal rejected her application for special leave to appeal. Mrs Haden also sought to challenge the District Court judgment by way of judicial review proceedings, but this application was dismissed by Allan J.

The primary legal issue the Court had to decide was whether the Registrar’s refusal to file the documents was justified. Mrs Haden argued that the new evidence she relied on was material and showed that Mr Wells had been less than honest with the Court, resulting in gross injustice to the plaintiffs. The Court held that the documents were fundamentally deficient in form and did not comply with the formal requirements for an application for review. The Court noted that an application for review must be made by motion accompanied by a statement of claim, and the documents filed by Mrs Haden were neither a motion nor a statement of claim. The Court concluded that the documents could not give rise to legal consequences and that even if they had substantially conformed with the formal requirements, a third attempt by Mrs Haden to challenge the District Court decision in this Court could not possibly succeed.

The Court dismissed Mrs Haden’s application for review of the Registrar’s decision. The Court held that the documents were fundamentally deficient in form and did not comply with the formal requirements for an application for review. The Court noted that an application for review must be made by motion accompanied by a statement of claim, and the documents filed by Mrs Haden were neither a motion nor a statement of claim. The Court concluded that the documents could not give rise to legal consequences and that even if they had substantially conformed with the formal requirements, a third attempt by Mrs Haden to challenge the District Court decision in this Court could not possibly succeed. The Court also noted that the Registrar has power to refuse to file a document which does not comply with formal requirements for documents and that in cases where the deficiencies are gross and palpable and the documents are not capable of giving rise to legal consequences, the Registrar is justified in refusing leave. The Court’s decision was that the application to review the Registrar’s decision is dismissed.

Orders