Joyce v O'Brien

[2018] NZHC 1047

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 139 OF THE CARE OF CHILDREN ACT 2004, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,

PLEASE SEE judgments/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CIV-2013-443-000305

[2018] NZHC 1047

BETWEEN

JOYCE

Applicant

AND

O’BRIEN

Respondent

Hearing:

14 May 2018 (In Chambers)

Counsel:

Applicant in person

C M Quin for Respondent (by memorandum)

Judgment:

15 May 2018 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

[1]                 Mr Joyce appeared in the Judge’s Chambers List this morning in support of an application made in connection with the judgment of Duffy J dated 9 May 2014 in these proceedings – Joyce v O’Brien.1

[2]                 Mr Joyce explained the background to his application in the written material he has filed,  and also in court this morning.   This is a long-standing matter and     Mr Joyce made a number of points in relation to the circumstances concerning his ability to have contact with G as he perceives them. Ms Quin filed a memorandum setting out the respondent’s perspective.

1      Joyce v O’Brien [2014] NZHC 964. I adopt the names used in the judgment of Duffy J.

JOYCE v O’BRIEN [2018] NZHC 1047 [14 May 2018]

[3]                 I raised with Mr Joyce what jurisdiction the High Court now had given the terms of the orders made by Duffy J. In her judgment she held:2

The appeal against the order denying the appellant all contact with G for a period of two years is allowed. That order is set aside. In its place I order that:

(a)The appellant is to have supervised contact with G once a fortnight for a period of two hours at the local Barnados office;

(b)The above order is to remain in place for six months, after which time the parties have leave to apply to the Family Court for further orders in relation to contact with G; and

(c)The parties also have leave to return to this Court to resolve any issue regarding the appointed day or time of the supervised contact, or if they are unable to resolve those issues between themselves.

[4]                 I read out this passage from the judgment, which Mr Joyce did not have with him. In those circumstances, I explained to Mr Joyce that it seemed that any application of the kind he was making now had to be made to the Family Court, rather than the High Court. It is now four years since the judgment, and the leave in paragraph [86] (c) relates to the six month period referred to in paragraph [86](b).  Mr Joyce understood the point that I was making.

[5]                 In the circumstances, I conclude that this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with Mr Joyce’s application, which I accordingly dismiss. Any further application must be made to the Family Court.

Cooke J

Solicitors:

Quinlaw Barristers & Solicitors, New Plymouth for Respondent

2      Joyce v O’Brien, above n 1, at [86].