Rachelle v Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal Complaints Asessment Committee

[2020] NZHC 1395

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CIV-2020-425-000029

[2020] NZHC 1395

BETWEEN

GEORGINA RACHELLE

Appellant

AND

TEACHERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL - COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT

COMMITTEE

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	Appellant in person
Judgment:	19 June 2020

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 June 2020 at 2.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: 19 June 2020

[1]    I have had referred to me a document described as a “Notice of Appeal-on minutes made by Judge M J Hunt regrading (sic) [as to Costs] and legal proceedings in general Dated 9 June 2020”.

[2]    The proceeding has been referred to me under High Court Rules 2016, r 5.35A to consider whether the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the Court and therefore able to be dealt with under the provisions of r 5.35B.

RACHELLE v TEACHERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL - COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE [2020] NZHC 1395 [19 June 2020]

[3]    Rule 5.35B allows me, if I am satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court, to:

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 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).

Background

[4]    Ms Rachelle became a registered teacher by virtue of the recognition of her qualifications from Australia in New Zealand. However, she was subsequently convicted of drink driving offences and referred by the Complaints Assessment Committee to the New Zealand Teachers Council Disciplinary Tribunal for review of her status as a registered teacher. By a decision dated 17 July the Tribunal, pursuant to the Education Act 1989 censored Ms Rachelle and her registration was cancelled.

[5]    She has appealed that decision. However, she also sought to bring civil proceedings against the defendant, seeking $300,000 in compensation, and that aspect was the subject of a strike-out application. Following the hearing on 7 May 2020, Judge Hunt issued a decision on 12 May 2020 striking out the claim on a number of grounds. The Judge noted:1

[t]he pleadings and submissions lacked structure and logical order and the clear application of recognised legal principles to the facts. As was apparent in the oral submissions, Ms Rachelle feels strongly that the decision to cancel her teacher registration is wrong but this decision deals with the civil claim, not the appeal.

1      Rachelle v Complaints Assessment Committee of Education of Aotearoa [2020] NZDC 8178 at [18].

[6]    The Judge attempted to analyse her claim but he held that she did not identify any legal basis for the compensation she sought and her pleadings were “garbled and difficult to follow”. He concluded that:2

the pleadings are beyond repair. Judicial directions have not been complied with. The pleadings have been amended but to no net effect. … The claims for damages/compensation are misconceived and have no legal foundation and are not pleaded in a coherent or orderly way.

[7]    Accordingly, he struck out the claims for compensation, but he concluded “the appeal may proceed. The following directions are made to advance the appeal to hearing.”

Discussion

[8]    With that background in mind, the document filed by Ms Rachelle is perplexing. It appears to reiterate her various objections to the decision made by the Tribunal saying “Ms Rachelle is dissatisfied with All the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal documented in Section “C” and wishes to appeal”. The body of the document does not comprise legal pleadings, but is really a rambling narrative of Ms Rachelle’s complaints and an account of her personal circumstances in support of her appeal. Near the conclusion, under the heading “Cause of Action”, she asks for “[a] hearing to be conducted at the Queenstown District Court for the Plaintiff to seek Justice, whilst providing evidential evidence to the court.

[9]    I am satisfied that the documents in their current form are an abuse of process. It is impossible to see what aspect of Judge Hunt’s decision she is appealing. It seems (though I cannot be sure) that she is under the misapprehension that her appeal cannot proceed. That is incorrect. The pleadings are otherwise rambling and argumentative. There is no ground of appeal disclosed.

[10]   In short, I am unable to see, on the face of the documents, that there is a viable claim which this Court could consider.

2 At [42].

[11]   Accordingly, the purported  proceedings  are  struck  out  under  High  Court r 5.35B.

Copy to: Ms Rachelle