Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

In Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner, the High Court of New Zealand was asked to consider an application by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to strike out a statement of claim filed by Malcolm Edward Rabson. Rabson's claim sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision to dismiss his complaints about certain Supreme Court Judges, alleging procedural impropriety and a breach of natural justice. The Commissioner argued that Rabson's statement of claim disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action and was, alternatively, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court examined the grounds for striking out the statement of claim under the High Court Rules and the principles applicable to such applications. The court noted that a cause of action may be struck out only if it is untenable, and a proceeding may be dismissed as an abuse of process if it is manifestly unfair or brings the administration of justice into disrepute. The court considered the content of Rabson's complaints and the Commissioner's decision, which was based on the Commissioner's lack of jurisdiction to review the legality or correctness of judicial decisions.

The court found that Rabson's first ground of review, alleging procedural impropriety, could not succeed as the Commissioner was authorised to dismiss multiple complaints about the same matter together and to notify complainants of the dismissal. Rabson's second ground of review, alleging a breach of natural justice, also failed as the Commissioner provided reasons for dismissing the complaints, contrary to Rabson's assertion. Additionally, the court held that Rabson's application was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process due to his speculative allegations of misconduct, his awareness of the Commissioner's jurisdictional limits, and the inevitability of the remedy being refused.

Accordingly, the court ordered that Rabson's statement of claim be struck out and that the Commissioner was not required to file a statement of defence. The court also awarded indemnity costs to the Commissioner, considering Rabson's history of similar proceedings being struck out with indemnity costs awarded. Rabson was given an opportunity to oppose the quantum of the costs claimed if he wished to do so.