Heenan v Gore

[2006] NZCA 8

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA201/05

BETWEENDAVID STANLEY HEENAN

Applicant

ANDDA VELLA JUNE GORE AND OTHERS

Respondents

Hearing:12 December 2005

Court:Anderson  P, Hammond and Robertson JJ

Counsel:Applicant appears in person

P R W Chisnall for Second, Third, Fifth and Sixth Respondents

Judgment:23 February 2006 

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        PROCEEDINGS STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCEDURE.

BCosts of $1,500 to second, third, fifth and sixth respondents collectively, together with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

(Given by Anderson P)

[1]       This matter was listed for hearing to enable Mr Heenan to show cause why the proceedings should not be struck out as vexatious and abusive.  The background appears in a minute issued on 21 September 2005, the terms of which are reproduced hereunder:

[1]       On 4 July 2005 and 8 August 2005 this Court received from Mr Heenan a number of documents purporting to be notices of appeal, accompanied by other documents.  The notices of appeal are described, respectively:

Quash and annul the fraudulently obtained bankruptcy

Discharge the fraudulently obtained bankruptcy

Quash the corrupt judgement (sic) of Judge Saunders

Stop, CIV 2005 425 101 from being struck out

Appeal the judgement (sic) of Justice Chisholm to refuse interim injunctions, relief, on CIV 2005 425 101.

[2]       Mr Heenan’s concerns have their origin in a judgment of the District Court, Alexandra given on 3 April 2000, by Judge Saunders, against Mr Heenan in an action brought by Ms D V J Gore on a dishonoured cheque.  The judgment, which included interest, damages for distress and costs on a solicitor-client basis, amounted to $42,723.81.  Bankruptcy proceedings were brought by Ms Gore in reliance on the unsatisfied judgment.  The bankruptcy petition was opposed by Mr Heenan on the grounds that the cheque in respect of which judgment had been obtained had been forged or altered in material respects.  Notwithstanding that line of defence, Associate Judge Venning, as he then was, made an order adjudicating Mr Heenan bankrupt.

[3]       Between entry of judgment in the District Court and the adjudication of bankruptcy Mr Heenan applied to the District Court at Alexandra for a rehearing of the proceeding brought by Ms Gore.  The application was dismissed.

[4]       Since the adjudication of bankruptcy many other proceedings have been brought by Mr Heenan against various defendants and on various causes of action.  In one of those the plaintiff purports to be “Heenan Family Trust” in the mistaken belief, it would seem, that a trust, which is a legal concept, somehow has the character of a legal person entitled to bring proceedings.  On 13 May 2005 Associate Judge Christiansen dismissed an application by Mr Heenan brought, not as one would expect, against the Official Assignee, but against Ms Gore, for what Mr Heenan called a “discharge from bankruptcy”.  Associate Judge Christiansen treated the application as one for annulment of bankruptcy, regarded it as an abuse, and dismissed it.  He made an order placing restrictions on Mr Heenan’s bringing any further applications for discharge.

[5]       Undeterred, Mr Heenan responded with an application for annulment which Associate Judge Christiansen dismissed on 27 June 2005 with the admonition that he considered the application to amount to an abuse of process, being a further attempt to litigate matters that had already been determined by the Court. 

[6]       Mr Heenan’s applications relating to CIV 2005 425 101 concern proceedings brought by him in the name of “The Heenan Family Trust No. 2 and Others” against 18 defendants.  The defendants include real estate agents, finance managers, solicitors, officers of the Official Assignee’s office along with Ms Gore and her son Mr W Gore.  In a judgment striking out the proceedings Associate Judge Christiansen observed that the statement of claim was an effort to wind back the clock on all the events that had occurred since Ms Gore obtained her judgment in the Alexandra District Court.  He found that the proceedings were arguably an abuse of process in attempting to relitigate that issue and the related bankruptcy matters.  But in addition the proceeding was frivolous and vexatious, muddled and unintelligible and otherwise meriting striking out.

[7]       There is no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the decision of the District Court.  The documents presented for filing in this Court by Mr Heenan are argumentative in nature, improper in observations made in respect of the judiciary, prolix and irregular as to form. 

[8]       The stage has been reached where this Court must intervene to ensure that its own processes are not abused.  Accordingly, I direct that the matters be set down in the miscellaneous motions list … to enable Mr Heenan to show cause why the proceedings should not be struck out as vexatious and abusive.  It is over to Mr Heenan whether he elects to appear personally, or by counsel, or to make submissions in writing.

[2]       Mr Heenan appeared before us to argue his position which he said, was seeking a direction from this Court to remit the matter to the High Court for reconsideration of the question of his discharge from bankruptcy. 

[3]       There is no doubt that Mr Heenan is deeply troubled by a sense of injustice over the course of the litigation he has been involved in.  Nevertheless, for the reasons set out in the minute of 21 September 2005 and endorsed by the Court in this judgment, the proceedings must be struck out, and they are, as an abuse of this Court’s procedure.

[4]       The second, third, fifth and sixth respondents are entitled to costs of $1,500, collectively, together with usual disbursements.

Solicitors:
Gibson Sheat, Wellington for Second, Third, Fifth and Sixth Respondents