Legal Research
Cases
Re Dunstan

Re Dunstan

Case [2023] NZHC 3176 10 November 2023

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ALL REDACTED TEXT IS EITHER THE SUBJECT OF SUPPRESSION ORDERS OR OF STATUTORY PROHIBITIONS ON PUBLICATION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-002332

[2023] NZHC 3176

IN THE MATTER
of an order against TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN under s 166 of the Senior Courts

Act 2016

Judgment:

(On the papers)
10 November 2023

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 November 2023 at 3.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

In the matter of an order against TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN [2023] NZHC 3176 [10 November 2023]

Introduction

[1] In New Zealand, people have a right to bring their civil disputes to the Courts and have them determined by an independent and impartial Judge in accordance with due process.

[2] But, all rights have limits. This Court will limit access to it and/or other courts if a person persists in bringing claims which are totally without merit. The Court resource is in significant demand by parties with real disputes to be resolved. If the Courts become clogged with unmeritorious claims then justice is delayed or denied to those with properly arguable claims. And those who are the target of unmeritorious claims also have a right not to be harassed by them:1
The power to restrain someone from commencing or continuing legal proceedings is no doubt a drastic reduction of his civil rights, and is still a restriction if it is subject to the grant of leave by a High Court judge. But there must come a time when it is right to exercise that power, for at least two reasons. First, the opponents who are harassed by the worry and expense of vexatious litigation are entitled to protection; secondly the resources of the judicial system are barely sufficient to afford justice without unreasonable delay to those who do have genuine grievances, and should not be squandered on those who do not.

[3] The Senior Courts Act 2016 provides:

166 Judge may make order restricting commencement or continuation of proceeding

(1)A Judge of the High Court may make an order restricting a person from commencing or continuing a civil proceeding.

(2)The order may have—

(a)a limited effect (a limited order); or

(b)an extended effect (an extended order); or

(c)a general effect (a general order).

(3)A limited order restrains a party from commencing or continuing civil proceedings on a particular matter in a senior court, another court, or a tribunal.

1 Attorney-General v Jones [1990] 1 WLR 859 (CA) at 865.

(4)An extended order restrains a party from commencing or continuing civil proceedings on a particular or related matter in a senior court, another court, or a tribunal.

(5)A general order restrains a party from commencing or continuing civil proceedings in a senior court, another court, or a tribunal.

(6)Nothing in this section limits the court’s inherent power to control its own proceedings.

167 Grounds for making section 166 order

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Re Dunstan

Details

AGLC: Re Dunstan [2023] NZHC 3176
Case: [2023] NZHC 3176
Decision Date: 10 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves a decision by Brewer J of the High Court of New Zealand, who made an order against Tanya Felicity Dunstan under section 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The Court found that Ms Dunstan had persistently brought claims that were totally without merit, leading to a significant strain on court resources and harassment of other parties involved. The legal issues the Court needed to decide included whether Ms Dunstan's actions justified an order under section 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 and, if so, the nature and scope of such an order. The Court considered the extensive history of Ms Dunstan's litigation, which included numerous proceedings across multiple registries that had been dismissed or struck out. Brewer J concluded that Ms Dunstan's conduct warranted a general order under section 166, restraining her from commencing or continuing any civil proceedings without first obtaining the leave of a Judge of the Court. The order was set to take effect from the date of the judgment and would remain in place for three years. This decision underscores the Court's role in managing its resources efficiently and protecting other litigants from undue harassment through vexatious litigation.

Orders