Hampton v District Court at Christchurch

[2016] NZHC 68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2011-409-002682 [2016] NZHC 68

BETWEEN

DAVID JOHN HAMPTON

Applicant

AND

DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH Respondent

Hearing:	2 February 2016
Appearances:	No appearance for the Applicant S E Burdes for the Respondent
Judgment:	3 February 2016

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1]      Mr Hampton filed judicial review proceedings in December 2011.  He sought a declaration that certain criticisms which were made of him as a witness and as someone involved in the transactions which the District Court was concerned with were invalid, and an order setting aside the adverse findings and inferences.

[2]      In  a judgment  of  25  July 2014, Whata  J  considered  whether or not  the criticisms made by the District Court Judge in relation to a witness in a proceeding were judicially reviewable on natural justice grounds.1    In his judgment, Whata J stated that “[as] currently framed the pleadings have no prospect of success”.   He went on to say that, instead of simply striking out the proceedings, he was giving Mr Hampton 15 working days to reframe the pleadings to conform to three threshold

tests he had identified.

1      Hampton v The District Court at Christchurch [2014] NZHC 1750.

HAMPTON v DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH [2016] NZHC 68 [3 February 2016]

[3]      Mr Hampton did not re-plead his case in the way he was permitted to by Whata J.  Instead, he endeavoured to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal but his appeal was out of time and was rejected.

[4]      On 9 February 2015, Gendall J made certain directions in response to a memorandum filed by the respondent seeking an “unless” order.  This application for an “unless” order required Mr Hampton to file an amended statement of claim by 27

February 2015, failing which his proceedings in this Court would be struck out.

[5]      Mr Hampton then filed a memorandum suggesting that matters in the High Court should be put on hold while he applied to review the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal rejecting his appeal.

[6]      On 5 March 2015, counsel for the respondent filed a memorandum seeking to pursue its application for “unless” orders.  Mr Hampton then lodged an application for review of the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal.  In a minute of 9

March 2015, Gendall J put matters in this Court on hold pending the decision of the

Court of Appeal Registrar.

[7]      On 12 November 2015, counsel for the respondent advised the Court by memorandum that, as far as the Court of Appeal Registry was concerned, there was then no application before that Court to review the decision of the Registrar rejecting the initial appeal.

[8]      On 24 November 2015, Mander J directed that Mr Hampton must renew his application in the Court of Appeal by the end of the week of 27 November 2015. Mander J also directed that Mr Hampton was to file a memorandum before 18

December 2015 advising what response he had received from the Court of Appeal and updating the High Court and the respondent as to the present position in relation to the proceedings.

[9]      By memorandum of 9 December 2015, counsel for the respondent advised the  Court  that,  as  of  7  December  2015,  the  Court  of Appeal  had  received  no application  and  counsel  had  no  response  to  attempts  to  communicate  with  Mr

Hampton over the matter.   The respondent sought an order that Mr Hampton be directed to re-plead his statement of claim, as directed by Whata J, by 18 December

2015 or have the matter struck out.

[10]     On  14  December  2015,  I  issued  a  minute  referring  to  the  fact  these proceedings were to be called before me in the Duty Judge list on 2 February 2016. I referred to the background to the proceedings.  I made an order that, pursuant to the respondent’s application of 2 February 2015, Mr Hampton was to re-plead his claim in accordance with the direction given by Whata J in his judgment of 25 July 2014. He was to do this by 25 January 2016.  I stated that, if he failed to do so, subject to any  new  matter  that  may  be  raised  in  memoranda  filed  by  either  party,  the proceedings would be struck out when called before me on 2 February 2016.

[11]     I also directed that, before 18 December 2015, Mr Hampton was required to file a memorandum in accordance with the earlier direction of Mander J advising what, if anything, he had done with regard to his application for review of the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal.  Both parties were given leave to file a further memorandum after 26 January 2016 advising the Court as to any further developments in these proceedings.

[12]     Mr Hampton has not filed any document in the High Court re-pleading his claim.   He did not file any memorandum by 18 December 2015 advising what, if any,  further steps  he had  taken  in  the Court  of Appeal.    He has  not  filed any memorandum after 26 January 2016.

[13]     In a memorandum of 27 January 2016, counsel for the respondent advised this Court that he had made enquiries of the Court of Appeal and was told that, as of

27 January 2016, no application had been filed by Mr Hampton with the Court of Appeal as to the review of the Registrar’s original decision rejecting the appeal that had been filed there.

[14]     Despite specific directions as to what was required and warnings as to what the consequences of non-compliance would be, Mr Hampton has done nothing to progress these proceedings in accordance with the directions of Whata J since those

directions were made in his judgment of 25 July 2014.   He has also failed to take steps to pursue an appeal to the Court of Appeal in accordance with a number of directions of this Court.

[15]     In his judgment of 25 July 2014, Whata J held that, as currently pleaded, the pleadings have no prospect of success.

[16]     Against that background, it would be an abuse of this Court to allow the proceedings to continue.  The proceedings should be struck out and I make an order accordingly.

[17]     If any application is to be made for costs, a memorandum of no more than three pages is to be filed within 14 days.

Solicitors:

Office of Legal Counsel, Wellington

Crown Law, Wellington

Raymond Donnelly & Co., Christchurch

Copy to: Mr D J Hampton.