PONSONBY CHAMBERS AND DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH

[2024] NZHC 2753

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2024-409-469

[2024] NZHC 2753

UNDER

the High Court Rules 2016

IN THE MATTER

of an application to review a Registrar’s decision

BETWEEN

PONSONBY CHAMBERS

Applicant

AND

DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH

First Respondent

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Second Respondent

Judgment:	23 September 2024
(Determined on the papers)

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

The Registrar’s decision

[1]                  On 30 August 2024, Judge G A Rea found there was no jurisdiction to accept for filing a charging document that had been presented to the District Court at Christchurch. He directed the District Court at Christchurch not to accept the charging document for filing.1

1      Rolls v Bryant, District Court, Christchurch, 30 August 2024 at [7].

PONSONBY CHAMBERS v DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH [2024] NZHC 2753 [23 September 2024]

[2]                  On 2 September 2024, documents in support of an application for judicial review were sent by email to the Registry of the High Court in Christchurch by email from “Ponsonby Chambers”.

[3]                  On 11 September 2024, the Registry sought clarification as to who was bringing the proceeding, noting:

The intitulement to the statement of claim names “Ponsonby Chambers” as the plaintiff but the statement of claim itself states that Melanie Rolls of Auckland, CEO of Ponsonby Chambers is the plaintiff.

[4]The Registry noted:

(a)“Ponsonby Chambers” was not referred to as an incorporated company in the documents although a search of the Companies Register showed there is a company “Ponsonby Chambers Ltd” of which Tanya Dunstan is director;

(b)it had good reason to believe Melanie Rolls and Tanya Dunstan are one and the same person;

(c)Ms Dunstan is prohibited from filing a new proceeding without leave of the Court, pursuant to a judgment of this Court;2 and

(d)a company cannot be represented by a party in-person, as a solicitor must act for a company in commencing or carrying on a proceeding.

[5]An email was received in reply from “Ponsonby Chambers” which recorded:

(a)“Ponsonby chambers is an entity that does exist.”

(b)“Tanya Dunstan is my Australian identity — that was my birth name and remains on my travel documents”.

(c)“I legally changed my name over a year ago …”

2      Re Dunstan [2023] NZHC 2176.

[6]                  On 12 September 2024, the Registry responded, stating the Registry was unable to accept the proceeding for filing.

Review of the Registrar’s decision

The law

[7]                  Under r 2.11(1) High Court Rules 2016 an affected party to a proceeding or an intended proceeding may apply to a Judge by interlocutory application for a review of (inter alia) a Registrar’s refusal to file a document tendered for filing.

[8]                  Under r 2.11(4) notice of an application for review must be filed (if made by a person who was present or represented when the decision or refusal of the Registrar was given) within five working days of the decision or refusal.

Steps taken towards review

[9]                  On 12 September 2024, an email was sent from “Ponsonby Chambers” to the Registry stating “I AM FORMALLY CHALLENGING THE REGISTRARS (sic) DECISION”.

[10]              On 18 September 2024, the Registry responded, identifying that an interlocutory application needed to be filed in order to have a Judge review a Registrar’s decision under r 2.11.

[11]              On 20 September 2024, an interlocutory application was filed seeking review of the Registrar’s decision.

Discussion

Time limit

[12]              The time limit for an application review is, under r 2.11(4)(a) High Court Rules, five working days. The interlocutory application was not filed within that period but an email was promptly received on the day of the Registrar’s decision “formally challenging” that decision.

[13]              Once the requirement for an interlocutory application was identified, an interlocutory application was promptly filed.

[14]              Pursuant to the Court’s discretion under r 1.19(1) High Court Rules, I extend the time for filing the interlocutory application to 20 September 2024, when it was filed.

The identity of the applicant for judicial review

[15]              The documents tendered for filing as an application for judicial review are ambiguous as to the identity of the intended applicant. “Ponsonby Chambers” is identified as “Plaintiff”. “Melanie Rolls” is identified on the front sheet as “representative” but the first paragraph of the application reads “I, Melanie Rolls of Auckland, CEO of Ponsonby Chambers, am the plaintiff in proceedings”.

[16]              Where the tendered notice  of  proceedings  has  provision  for  a  signature, (r 5.23(1)(a) requiring the notice to be signed by the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s solicitor) there is endorsed above the typed words “Ponsonby Chambers (plaintiff)” a signature which appears to be “Mr X”.

[17]              In an affidavit tendered in support of the judicial review, sworn by Melanie Rolls, she introduced herself as “Melanie Rolls of Auckland, CEO and founder of Ponsonby Chamber”. She then deposed “I am the plaintiff in these proceedings which I have filed in good faith in the interests of justice for the publics (sic) confidence in the judiciary”.

Irregularity of the tendered documents

[18]              It appears from the email reply to the Registry, stating “Ponsonby Chambers is an entity that does exist”, that the writer believes, by referring to “Ponsonby Chambers” she is referring to an entity in the sense of a legal person. For whatever reason, there has been no reference at any point in the documents to a company registered as “Ponsonby Chambers Limited”, which does exist as an entity. It was not for the Registry or this Court to infer there was an intention to name “Ponsonby

Chambers Limited” as the applicant. In any event, no attempt has been made to file amended documents naming “Ponsonby Chambers Limited” as applicant.

[19]              Had “Ponsonby Chambers Limited” been named as applicant, the Registry could not without leave of the Court accept the documents for filing as the documents are required to be filed by a solicitor on behalf of the company.3

[20]              If the documents are treated as having been tendered by Melanie Rolls, who described herself in her affidavit as “the plaintiff in these proceedings”, the Registrar was correct to then consider the standing of the person known as “Melanie Rolls” to commence a proceeding. In her email reply to the Registry, that person confirmed that “Tanya Dunstan is my Australia identity”. In other words the person referring to themself as “Melanie Rolls” and “Tanya Dunstan” are one and the same person.

[21]              By the judgment of this Court in Re Dunstan, Ms Dunstan is subject to a general order restraining her from commencing or continuing any civil proceedings in this Court and other Courts, without first obtaining leave of a Judge of this Court.4 The order is in effect until 10 November 2026.

[22]              As there has not been an application for leave to commence the intended judicial review proceeding, the Registrar correctly declined to accept the documents for filing.

Outcome

[23]The application for review of the Registrar’s decision is dismissed.

Osborne J

Copy to: T F Dunstan, Melanie Rolls

3      Lynskey v Dorley Holdings Ltd (1988) 2 PRNZ 637 (HC); Pro Pacific Ltd v Wilson (1996) 9 PRNZ 687 (HC). See also Ponsonby Chambers v New Zealand Police [2024] NZHC 2680 at [4].

4      Re Dunstan [2023] NZHC 3176.