Heenan v Attorney-General - [2017] NZHC 19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2016-409-001152 [2017] NZHC 19

BETWEEN
DAVID STANLEY HEENAN

First Applicant

AND

DAVID STANLEY HEENAN as Trustee of the Heenan Family Trust 1960

Second Applicant

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

Hearing: 5 December 2016

Appearances:

Applicant in person

Judgment:

1 February 2017

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] Mr Heenan was declared a vexatious litigant on 19 August 2009.

[2] Mr Heenan personally and separately as trustee applied, pursuant to s 88B(2) of the Judicature Act 1908, for leave to issue a proceeding against WR and DVJ Gore, an order setting aside the first applicant’s bankruptcy and status as a vexatious litigant upon the grounds a judgment given against him on 20 March 2000 was obtained by fraud.

[3] I heard Mr Heenan in support of the application on 5 December 2016.

[4] The application was based primarily on a judgment of Justice Fogarty dated

14 August 2014, a copy of which accompanied the application but generally on the

basis of Mr Heenan’s assertion he had been denied justice for 18 years.

HEENAN v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [2017] NZHC 19 [1 February 2017]

[5] The grievance which Mr Heenan wishes to pursue through proceedings relates to his contention that Judge Saunders gave judgment against him in the District Court at Alexandra in May 1999 on the basis of fraudulent evidence.

[6] In a judgment of 14 August 2014, Fogarty J gave leave to Mr Heenan as a vexatious litigant to begin new proceedings in the High Court in Invercargill to seek a judgment against Mrs Gore on the grounds the District Court judgment was obtained by fraud and for a declaration relating to that.

[7] Mr Heenan did begin proceedings against Mrs Gore as he was given leave to do by Justice Fogarty. Eventually the proceedings were struck out by Associate Judge Osborne because Mr Heenan, in breach of an unless order previously made by the Judge, filed documents in the proceedings which were unacceptable because of the scandalous nature of comments that were included in them.

[8] Mr Heenan was adjudicated bankrupt on 1 October 2015. He remains an undischarged bankrupt. On that basis, any right of action he had to pursue proceedings personally are now vested in the Official Assignee. For that reason alone, he is not personally able to institute the proceedings he wishes to.

[9] Mr Heenan’s application is also made by himself in his capacity as trustee of the Heenan Family Trust. It is apparent from the judgment of Fogarty J that the Heenan Family Trust had no interest in the original proceedings with Mrs Gore. The judgment obtained against Mr Heenan was against him personally. In these circumstances, it would be an abuse of the Court process for the trust to be given leave to issue proceedings against Mrs Gore.

[10] Mr Heenan made an application for leave to issue other civil proceedings which were the subject of a hearing on 13 July 2016.

[11] After hearing…

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 Heenan v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Heenan v Attorney-General [2017] NZHC 19
Case: [2017] NZHC 19
Decision Date: 1 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Heenan v Attorney-General, David Stanley Heenan, both personally and as trustee of the Heenan Family Trust, sought leave from the High Court of New Zealand to issue proceedings against Wayne Richard Gore and Da Vella June Gore, as well as the Attorney General. Heenan claimed that the District Court judgment against him was obtained by fraud and sought to set aside his bankruptcy and status as a vexatious litigant. The primary legal issue was whether Heenan should be granted leave to pursue the proceedings, considering his history of vexatious litigation and the scandalous nature of his claims.

The court examined Heenan's application and found that his claims were based on a judgment that had already been considered and dismissed. The court noted that Heenan had been previously granted leave to pursue similar claims, which were subsequently struck out due to his unacceptable conduct in court. Additionally, Heenan's personal right to sue had been transferred to the Official Assignee due to his bankruptcy, and the Heenan Family Trust had no interest in the original proceedings. The court held that granting Heenan leave to issue the proceedings would constitute an abuse of court processes. Therefore, the court declined Heenan's application and issued an order prohibiting him from filing any further applications seeking leave to issue the proceedings.

The court also issued an order to suppress the publication of a document filed by Heenan that contained scandalous allegations, and warned Heenan that any further attempts to file such documents would result in contempt of court. This case highlights the court's role in preventing vexatious litigation and ensuring that court processes are not abused.

Orders