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.

8 At [8].

9      Halse v Rangiura Trust Board [2023] NZHC 1519 at [118].

[7]        On 21 August 2023, Mr Halse tendered for filing an application for a stay of proceedings and an affidavit in support. On 24 August 2023, the Registrar of the High Court at Hamilton advised Mr Halse that the Court was unable to accept his documents for filing “as an order restraining you from commencing or continuing civil proceedings on this matter or any related matter in any senior court” had been made by Moore J on 19 June 2023. Mr Halse replied to the Registrar the same day by email, suggesting that in declining to accept his documents, the Registrar had “made a decision on a point of law contained in the judgment that is a point that Justices of the Court of Appeal have been asked to determine through my appeal”. He asked the Registrar  to  reconsider  the  issue  and   accept   the   documents   for   filing.   On 28 August 2023, the Registrar advised that she would not do so until a judgment setting aside the restraining order had been made.

Mr Halse’s application

[8]        Mr Halse has filed a detailed notice setting out the grounds of his application for review. He argues that the effect of the Registrar’s decision is to determine the ultimate point of law that is a fundamental ground of his appeal from the decision of the High Court making the restraining order. He notes his statutory entitlement, in    s 169 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, to appeal the restraining order, and he sets out in some length his criticisms of the decision under appeal.

Consideration

[9]        Given the order of this Court restraining Mr Halse from continuing this proceeding or initiating new proceedings, the decision of the Registrar cannot be faulted. Rather than usurping the function of the Court as Mr Halse has argued, the Registrar has merely given effect to the order as she was required to do.

Conclusion

[10]The application is dismissed.

Isac J