James v District Court Whanganui - [2022] NZHC 2309

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CIV-2022-483-004

[2022] NZHC 2309

BETWEEN
JAMES

Applicant

AND

DISTRICT COURT WHANGANUI

Respondent

On the papers:

Judgment:

9 September 2022

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1] On 14 February 2022, the applicant filed a statement of claim in the Whanganui High Court. The matter has now come before me for consideration as Duty Judge.

[2] On 24 March 2022, the applicant’s statement of claim was referred by Mallon J to the Registrar for consideration under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016. Regrettably, due to an administrative error, the matter was not dealt with or subsequently referred to a Judge to consider under r 5.25B.

[3] In order for a Judge to consider a proceeding pursuant to r 5.35B, it must be referred to them “as soon as practicable after accepting the proceeding for filing”.1 As some months have passed since the proceeding was referred to the Registrar, and no action has been taken, the matter can no longer be dealt with under rr 5.35A and 5.35B.

1 High Court Rules 2016, r 5.35A(3)(a).

JAMES v DISTRICT COURT WHANGANUI [2022] NZHC 2309 [9 September 2022]

However, the High Court retains the inherent jurisdiction to manage and regulate its own processes, including the power to dismiss or stay proceedings.2

Statement of claim

[4] The applicant says that his name is James, and I will therefore call him that. His statement of claim seeks an injunction against the Whanganui District Court in the following terms:

Article One;

The District Court has proceeded without consent to conduct business with the Legal Fiction JAMES JONES, James JONES, Mr J Jones, and all similar constructs of the Person Registered with Births Deaths and Marriages and having a Birth Date of 8^th January 1951.
Such action is unlawful.
Article Two;
The District Court refuses to acknowledge the true identity of the Man James as identified in a Statutory Declaration made to the DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS who is an agent of the CROWN CORPORATION OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED.
The District Court obstructs the filing of documents which do not admit joinder Man to the Legal Fiction.
Such action is unlawful.
Remedy Sought
There is a current matter to come before the District Court and the Applicant, because of previous District Court obstruction, seeks the High Court to issue an Injunction:
1.Ordering the District Court to acknowledge that the living body of the Man, as indicated in the Statutory Declaration of Identity is the Man James and not the Legal Fiction Person JAMES JONES, date of birth 8^th January 1951, and
2.That the District Court, having been denied jurisdiction must obtain written consent from James in order to conduct any business with the Legal Fiction JAMES JONES, James JONES, J Jones, Mr J Jones, and all other similar constructs having the name Jones and with a birth date of 8^th January 1951.

2 Senior Courts Act 2016,…

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 James v District Court Whanganui 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: [2022] NZHC 2309
Decision Date: 9 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the applicant James brought a claim against the District Court Whanganui, seeking an injunction against the Court's proceedings. The court was required to determine whether James' claims, which were based on the 'Sovereign Citizen' movement and the 'dual persona theory', had any legal foundation or were an abuse of process. The court found that James' claims were without legal foundation and based on Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments, and therefore struck out the claim as an abuse of process. The court held that no person within New Zealand is able to dissociate themselves from their "legal persona" so as to remove themselves from the jurisdiction of the courts. This case highlights the court's inherent jurisdiction to manage and regulate its own processes, and its power to dismiss or stay proceedings that are an abuse of process.

The court's decision was based on its inherent jurisdiction to manage and regulate its own processes, including the power to dismiss or stay proceedings that are an abuse of process. The court held that James' claims were based on Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments and had no legal foundation. The court found that it was an abuse of process for James to attempt to employ such arguments in seeking to avoid or defeat any state obligations recognised by law. The court also relied on the Court of Appeal's conclusions in Warahi, which held that such arguments are untenable and without legal foundation. The court struck out James' claim pursuant to r 15.1(1) of the High Court Rules, and the High Court's inherent jurisdiction, as an abuse of process.

Orders