Living man: David-John: of the house Wilson v Chief Executive of the Southland District Council

[2025] NZHC 1158

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CIV-2025-425-36

[2025] NZHC 1158

BETWEEN

LIVING MAN: DAVID-JOHN: OF THE HOUSE WILSON
Appellant

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE

SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	14 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 May 2025 at 3 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:     .

LIVING MAN: DAVID-JOHN: OF THE HOUSE WILSON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL [2025] NZHC 1158 [14 May 2025]

[1]                 An appellant, self-described as “living man: david-john: of the house wilson”, has purported to file a notice of appeal from a decision of the Invercargill District Court entering judgment in default against a Mr David Wilson for an amount of unpaid rates and penalties for the period 1 July 2021 to 25 November 2022.

[2]                 Pursuant to r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016 (the Rules), the Registrar has referred the matter to me, in my capacity as duty Judge, on the basis the proceedings constitute an abuse of process and make scurrilous accusations against the Registrar of the Invercargill District Court.

[3]                 The document that has been filed purports to notify that “living man: david- john: of the house wilson” appeals the default judgment on the grounds:

Grounds

1.   Serious miscarriage of justice due to

a)plaintiff using false identities in materials particular [sic] for pecuniary gain and reward

b)registrar being bribed or coerced and altered documents for pecuniary gain or reward

2.   Debt bondage, serfdom and slavery via claim of authority, coercion and deception

[4]In terms of the relief sought, the document states:

We request that the High Court order this decision to be overturned and for all fraudulent parties to be held accountable

The notice is unsigned, although an impression of a fingerprint has been placed on the document.

[5]                 Rule 5.35A permits a Registrar who believes a proceeding is, on the face of it, plainly an abuse of process of the Court to refer that proceeding to a Judge for consideration before releasing the documents that would enable the proceeding to be served.

[6]                 Under r 5.35B, if the Judge to whom the proceeding has been referred is satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of process of the Court, the Judge may

make an order striking out the proceeding, or make any orders or directions so that the proceeding is conducted according to the Rules. The rule relevantly provides:

5.35B Judge’s powers to make orders and give directions before service

(1)This rule applies if a Judge to whom a Registrar refers a proceeding under rule 5.35A is satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the court.

(2)The Judge may, on his or her own initiative, make an order or give directions to ensure that the proceeding is disposed of or, as the case may be, proceeds in a way that complies with these rules, including (without limitation) an order under rule 15.1 that—

(a)the proceeding be struck out:

(b)the proceeding be stayed until further order:

(c)documents for service be kept by the court and not be served until the stay is lifted:

(d)no application to lift the stay be heard until the person who filed the proceeding files further documents as specified in the order (for example, an amended statement of claim or particulars of claim).

(3)Rule 7.43(3) does not apply. However, if a Judge makes an order on the Judge’s own initiative without giving the person who filed the proceeding an opportunity to be heard, the order must contain a statement of that person’s right to appeal against the decision.

(4)A copy of a Judge’s decision to strike out a proceeding must, if practicable, also be served on the person named as a party or, if more than 1 person is named, those persons named as parties to the proceeding.

(5)See rule 2.1(3)(b) concerning the exclusion of the jurisdiction and powers of a Judge under this rule from the jurisdiction and powers of an Associate Judge.

[7]                 These express powers reflect the exercise of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to enable the Court to prevent a misuse of the Court’s process when the proceeding would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The right of a litigant to bring proceedings must be weighed against the interests of individual parties who may otherwise been drawn into an entirely unmeritorious proceeding.1 The power to strikeout a proposed proceeding as an abuse of process is to be exercised sparingly.2

1      Jones v New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Ltd [2021] NZHC 3220 at [20].

2      Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd [2013] NZCA 53, [2013] 2 NZLR 679 at [89].

In exercising the power, the Court should consider whether it would be manifestly unfair to the respondents that they be required to respond, and whether right-thinking people would regard the Court as exercising very poor control of its process if it were to allow the applicant’s document to be regarded as proper.3

Analysis

[8]                 The notice of appeal fails to disclose any discernible grounds upon which to found a successful appeal. Moreover, it makes scurrilous allegations against the local District Council which are incapable of being advanced in the context of an appeal from the entry of a default judgment against a person named as David John Wilson for unpaid rates. Similarly, an outrageous and slanderous allegation is made against the named Registrar of the Invercargill District Court, that she has been bribed and has altered documents for pecuniary gain or reward. Again, in the context of the entry of a default judgment by a District Court Judge, such an outrageous allegation that is incapable of being substantiated will not be permitted to be advanced under the guise of an appeal to this Court.

[9]                 When regard is had to the nature of the proceeding in the District Court, the notice of appeal can only be interpreted as an attempt to make baseless allegations that are without foundation or capable of being substantiated. The notice of appeal purports to be filed by an unrecognisable entity, described as “living man: david-john: of the house wilson”, and is plainly an abuse of process. Even if the defendant in the District Court and the self-described appellant in the notice of appeal are recognised as the same individual, there is no basis set out in that document upon which the named respondents should be required to participate, or upon which the appellant could possibly succeed, when regard is had to the circumstances in which judgment was entered in the District Court.

[10]             In the absence of the notice of appeal disclosing any reasonably arguable basis for the appeal, it constitutes an abuse of process and is struck out. To do otherwise would be a failure by this Court to intervene to protect persons from oppressive or

3      Matheson v Slevin [2018] NZHC 1032, (2018) 25 PRNZ 116 at [6].

frivolous proceedings, and maintain public confidence in the administration of justice by refusing to tolerate the abuse of its procedures.4

Orders

[11]I make the following orders:

(a)The notice of appeal is struck out.

(b)The would-be appellant is informed that he has the right to appeal this decision by appeal to the Court of Appeal within 20 working days after the date of the decision.

4      O’Neill v Commissioner of Police [2022] NZCA 501 at [23].