Halse v Rangiura Trust Board - [2023] NZHC 2495

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2022-419-70

[2023] NZHC 2495

BETWEEN
ALLAN GEOFFREY HALSE

Plaintiff

AND

RANGIURA TRUST BOARD

First Defendant

AND

NORRIS WARD MCKINNON LTD

Second Defendant

AND

SAMUEL WALLACE HOOD

Third Defendant

AND

ERIN REBEKAH ANDERSON

Fourth Defendant

On the Papers

Counsel:

Plaintiff in Person

M Roberston and S Pasley for First Defendant
V Wethey and R Anderson for Second to Fourth Defendants

Judgment:

6 September 2023

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Review of Registrar’s decision]

[1] The plaintiff, Mr Allan Halse, has applied to review a decision of a Registrar refusing to accept for filing his application for a stay of proceedings.

Jurisdiction

[2] Mr Halse’s application is brought under r 2.11 of the High Court Rules 2016. The rule provides that an affected party to a proceeding may apply to a Judge by interlocutory application for review of a Registrar’s refusal to file a document tendered

HALSE v RANGIURA TRUST BOARD & ORS [2023] NZHC 2495 [6 September 2023]

for filing.1 A Judge may, on review, make any order he or she thinks just.2 Notice of an application for review must be filed within five working days after receipt by the party of notice of the decision or refusal to file.3

[3] A Registrar’s refusal to accept a document for filing generally arises through a view taken that the document is not in a form permitted by the Rules.4

[4] In LFDB v SM, the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that a Registrar was entitled to refuse to accept an application for filing because the applicant had been debarred from taking part in the proceeding.5 The Court rejected LFDB’s arguments that the Registrar was obliged to accept his application for filing provided it met the formal requirements in rr 5.3–5.16.6

[5] In Tomar v Family Court in Morrinsville, Venning J upheld a Registrar’s decision to refuse to accept Mr Tomar’s application for judicial review on the basis that the applicant was subject to an order by Downs J prohibiting him from continuing existing or commencing new proceedings in the High Court until he had met an outstanding costs order.7 Given the applicant had failed to comply with the pre-condition requiring payment of the costs award, his Honour held that if the documents had been accepted for filing they would have been in breach of the Court’s order. Therefore, “[t]he Registrar was obliged not to accept them”.8

Context

[6] In a judgment of 19 June 2023, Moore J made an order restraining Mr Halse from commencing or continuing civil proceedings “on this matter or any related matter in any senior court, another court, or Tribunal”.9

1      High Court Rules 2016, r 2.11(1)(b).
2      Rule 2.11(2).
3      Rule 2.11(4)(b).
4      McGechan on Procedure (online ed, Thomson Reuters) at [HR2.11.02].
5      LFDM v SM [2021] NZCA 445, (2021) 25 PRNZ 794.
6      At [25]–[26].
7      Tomar v Family Court in Morrinsville/Hamilton [2023] NZHC 1694.

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 Halse v Rangiura Trust Board 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: [2023] NZHC 2495
Decision Date: 6 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Allan Geoffrey Halse has applied for judicial review of a Registrar’s decision to refuse to accept for filing his application for a stay of proceedings. The application arises from a broader dispute involving Halse, the Rangiura Trust Board, Norris Ward McKinnon Ltd, Samuel Wallace Hood, and Erin Rebekah Anderson. The primary issue before the court was whether the Registrar was correct in refusing to accept Halse’s application for filing due to a pre-existing restraining order that prohibited him from continuing or initiating proceedings in relation to the matter. The court had to determine if the Registrar’s decision was justified under the circumstances.

The court considered the relevant rules and previous cases that established a Registrar’s authority to refuse filing if an applicant is subject to an order prohibiting them from continuing or initiating proceedings. The court found that the Registrar’s refusal was in accordance with the restraining order issued by Moore J, and thus, was not an improper determination of the ultimate point of law in Halse’s appeal. The Registrar’s decision was a practical application of the existing order, rather than an unwarranted judicial function.

The application for review was dismissed, as the Registrar had correctly followed the Court’s order. The court found no fault in the Registrar’s decision to refuse filing Halse’s application, given the clear terms of the restraining order. The judgment reinforces the principle that a Registrar’s refusal to accept a document for filing is appropriate when the document would result in a breach of a Court order.

There were no further orders made in the judgment. The dismissal of the application for review means that the restraining order remains in effect, and Halse is still prohibited from continuing or initiating proceedings related to the matter.

Orders