Re Dunstan

[2023] NZHC 3176

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

(1)A Judge may make a limited order under section 166 if, in civil proceedings about the same matter in any court or tribunal, the Judge considers that at least 2 or more of the proceedings are or were totally without merit.

(2)A Judge may make an extended order under section 166 if, in at least 2 proceedings about any matter in any court or tribunal, the Judge considers that the proceedings are or were totally without merit.

(3)A Judge may make a general order if, in at least 2 proceedings about any matter in any court or tribunal, the Judge considers that the proceedings are or were totally without merit.

(4)In determining whether proceedings are or were totally without merit, the Judge may take into account the nature of any interlocutory applications, appeals, or criminal prosecutions involving the party to be restrained, but is not limited to those considerations.

(5)The proceedings concerned must be proceedings commenced or continued by the party to be restrained, whether against the same person or different persons.

(6)For the purpose of this section and sections 168 and 169, an appeal in a civil proceeding must be treated as part of that proceeding and not as a distinct proceeding.

[4]        I have decided that Ms Dunstan is a person who satisfies the s 167 grounds for making a general order under s 166. This Judgment gives my reasons and sets out the orders. It is redacted in part to give effect to existing suppression orders or to statutory prohibitions on publication.

Background

[5]        By way of background,  I reproduce a Minute I sent to Ms Dunstan dated    11 October 2023 (less attachments):

[1]        The purpose of this Minute is to give notice to Ms Dunstan that I am considering whether I should make an order against her pursuant to s 166 of

the Senior Courts Act 2016 (the Act) restraining her from commencing or continuing civil proceedings in a senior court, another court, or a tribunal. The Act provides that such an order may have a limited effect, an extended effect or a general effect. On the material I have currently, it seems to me that if I do make an order it would likely be either an extended order or a general order.

[2]        By way of background, I was Duty Judge in Auckland for the week of 17 April 2023. I was referred eight separate proceedings by the Registrar which had been presented for filing by Ms Dunstan.2 I was asked to assess them under rr 5.35A and 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016 and decide whether any were plainly an abuse of the process of the court.

[3]        In my Minute of 17 April 2023, I declined to make an order under    r 5.35B because of clear limits placed on the exercise of the powers conferred by that rule by the Court of Appeal, most recently in Te Wakaminenga o Nga Hapu Ki Waitangi v Waitangi National Trust Board.3 In preparing this Minute, I was advised that, due to inadvertence, the Minute was not promulgated. I attach a copy.

[4]        Subsequently, on 23 June 2023, two further proceedings were referred to me for the same purpose.4 I declined to make orders for the same reason.

[5]        In the course of considering those referrals  I  became  aware  that Ms Dunstan is a prolific user of the courts’ systems. As at the date of this Minute I have identified:

(a)in the Auckland High Court Registry, 58 proceedings;

(b)in the Tauranga High Court Registry, one proceeding;

(c)in the Rotorua High Court Registry, one proceeding;

(d)in the Hamilton High Court Registry, two proceedings;

(e)in the Wellington High Court Registry, four proceedings;

(f)in the New Plymouth High Court Registry, two proceedings;

(g)in the Christchurch High Court Registry, four proceedings;

(h)in the Court of Appeal Registry, 29 proceedings; and

(i)in the Supreme Court Registry, 27 proceedings.

[6]        The grounds for making an order under s 166 include as a threshold that at least two civil proceedings filed by a party are or were totally without merit.

[7]        I attach to this Minute a schedule of Ms Dunstan’s proceedings which I have identified. On their face, the following might be said to be totally without merit:

2      [REDACTED].

3      Te Wakaminenga o Nga Hapu Ki Waitangi v Waitangi National Trust Board [2023] NZCA 63.

4      [REDACTED].

(a)[REDACTED].5

(b)In the following related High Court6 and Court of Appeal proceedings, Ms Dunstan’s proceedings in the High Court for a malicious prosecution that simply replicated identical proceedings in the District Court was struck out. The Court of  Appeal  upheld  the  High  Court  decision  and  noted  Ms Dunstan’s attempts to concurrently pursue malicious prosecution proceedings in the District Court and High Court were “clearly an abuse of process”.7

(c)[REDACTED].8, 9

(d)      [REDACTED].10, 11, 12

(e)In the following related High Court13 and Court of Appeal proceedings, Ms Dunstan sought to bring a tortious claim for damages against the Attorney-General and a Family Court Judge. Justice Lang struck out the proceedings as it was untenable “because the Family Court Judge was immune from suit and accordingly the State could not be vicariously liable for his acts”. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, noting “[t]he proposed appeal against the judgment is hopeless.”14

(f)In [REDACTED], the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of a judgment of Lang J.15 In his substantive judgment, Lang J found that there were procedural errors with the decision to refuse documents for filing for a private prosecution and remitted the matter back to the District Court. In proceedings at the High Court, Ms Dunstan also sought orders that Ms N, the subject of her private prosecution, be required to participate in the proceedings and to be required “to admit certain facts, which were clearly intended to support the proposed criminal prosecution”. The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, found that there was no jurisdiction to make the orders sought.

[8]        Section 169(3) of the Act provides that a Judge of this Court may make an order on his or her own initiative. I consider that Ms Dunstan should have the opportunity to be heard on whether I should make an order against her. If Ms Dunstan does wish to be heard, then she is to advise the registry of that no later than 31 October 2023.

5      [REDACTED].

6      Dunstan v Attorney-General [2022] NZHC 674.

7      Dunstan v Auckland High Court [2022] NZCA 478; and, see, Dunstan v Auckland High Court [2022] NZCA 623 where Ms Dunstan unsuccessfully attempted to recall the judgment on the “merits of the Appeal Judgment”.

8      [REDACTED].

9      [REDACTED].

10     [REDACTED].

11     [REDACTED].

12     [REDACTED].

13     [REDACTED].

14     [REDACTED].

15     [REDACTED].

[9]        If Ms Dunstan elects to be heard, then I will request the Solicitor- General16 to appoint counsel to appear and be heard as counsel assisting the Court. I will then convene a telephone conference to settle a timetable.

[10]      For Ms Dunstan’s convenience, I also attach to this Minute a copy of ss 166 to 169 of the Act.

[6]        Ms Dunstan replied to my Minute by Memorandum dated 12 October 2023. In it, Ms Dunstan affirms her position that her cases are brought with merit and that justice has been denied to her on many occasions. Ms Dunstan demands that all her current cases be scheduled and managed with expedition.

[7]        Ms Dunstan made submissions on the cases I identified at [7] of my Minute to her:

8. To address the errors of law [that “on the face of  them” could  be  distorted to discredit and defame me and the validity of my cases:] in misconceived matters stated in para [7] of Justice Brewers minute I state:

a)   Justice Fitzgerald struck out the JR of Judge Johns [a matter likely the registrar concealed the supporting documents from] I was not awarded a right to file additional supporting material, [REDACTED] - and Justice Fitzgerald threw out the case and awarded costs against me! The precedent case for this being in error of law and in breach of my rights to justice was issued in a similar JR appeal on 12 October 2022 NZCA477. It is regrettable for Justice Fitzgerald the courts position is that “judgements should stand for better or worse” … this is truly an embarrassing and obviously erroneous decision that will forever be on Justice Fitzgeralds record.

b)   The Malicious and Vexatious prosecution of police matters in the District Court and the Appeal of separate “aggravating matters” before Justice Gault of “fabrication of evidence and misleading justice” were clearly separate matters that the courts gleefully alleged were “duplicates” – I would like to imagine this was a genuine error of judgement, however with clearly different claims, it is simply implausible to imagine any judges could have genuinely believed these two separate matters were the same- despite running concurrently with the same parties. [Justice Gault challenged the parties, the legislation relied on and when I supported this with a precedent case, he alleged to not know Nicky Hagers case regarding the unlawful warrant- all in all a truly bizarre “teleconference” never to be heard of again.]

c)   [REDACTED].

d)  [REDACTED].

e)    This one is a gem- as no judge is immune from suit when they exceed jurisdiction and commit criminal offences- as proven recently in Standford and Vasta It was in error for any judge to imply, let alone state “matter of fact

16     Rule 10.22.

ly” judges have complete legal immunity from suit- It is of grave concern Judges appear unable and unwilling to uphold their oaths to act fairly, without ill will, fear or favour” particularly when it comes to addressing misconduct behind the bench. [Judge Mahons offending has continued, and the consequences for this will fall squarely on higher judges to regulate- retirement will be grossly inadequate.]

f)  I won the JR before Justice Lang on 19 December 2022 that was appealed to the Court Of Appeal on the grounds- Judge Lang had acknowledged “obvious errors” from the District court, but had failed to remit the matter to an independent court to avoid the same errors- which against graced to High Court for another JR that I won- on this seemingly relentless delay strategy to actively prevent just finality. Had Justice Lang directed the defendants to participate in the proceedings under JPA 2016 s14-16 there would have been further evidence to substantiate the grounds of the case- instead I was deliberately prejudiced in proceedings and denied a $1 for my successful JR. I know reasonable disbursements are available so this was a further error- that remains another failing of the court.

[8]        Ms Dunstan did not request an oral hearing.

Discussion

[9]        I have reviewed the cases I identified in my Minute at [7] therein in light of Ms Dunstan’s comments. I applied the meaning of “totally without merit” approved by the Court of Appeal in Mawhinney v Auckland Council:17

However, we agree with English jurisprudence and the parties in this case that a proceeding is totally without merit if it is bound to fail.

[10]      I find that all of the cases identified at [7] of my Minute were totally without merit in that they were all bound to fail.

[11]      I attach to this Judgment the latest schedule of Ms Dunstan’s filings which I have compiled. I do not think it is exhaustive. It speaks for itself. Quite a number of her proceedings were struck out. In Attorney-General v Collier, a Full Court of the High Court said the following:18

Although in many cases it may not be possible to decide whether litigation is wholly without merit until it is determined, a successful strike-out application by the defendant, at least where not based upon technical points (such as

17     Mawhinney v Auckland Council [2021] NZCA 144, [2021] 3 NZLR 519 at [58].

18     Attorney-General v Collier [2001] NZAR 137 at 149, cited with approval by the Court of Appeal in Brogden v Attorney General [2001] NZAR 809 (CA) at [21].

Limitation Act defences or error in the form of proceedings not known to the plaintiff) may be reliable evidence in the circumstances of vexatiousness.

[12]      I will not speculate on what has caused Ms Dunstan to file proceedings so prolifically and so often without merit. I accept she has grievances in which she believes passionately. I am aware that she has ongoing litigation in the Family Court on matters which are of extreme importance to her, as they would be for anyone. But, as I said, the right to bring proceedings to the Courts is not an unlimited one and    Ms Dunstan has gone beyond the limits. I have therefore decided to include the Family Court in my order while recognising that Ms Dunstan might well obtain leave to continue or commence proceedings in that Court in relation to new matters.

[13]      So, I emphasise that  the  order  I  am  about  to  make  does  not  preclude  Ms Dunstan from bringing a claim which discloses merit. Or from continuing any existing proceeding which discloses merit. But, from the date of this Judgment in order to commence or continue any proceeding Ms Dunstan must first obtain the leave of a Judge of this Court.

[14]      I  have  decided  to  make  a  general  order  because  of  the  prolixity  of   Ms Dunstan’s filings and their widening ambit. They no longer relate just to her Family Court matters.

Order

[15]      I make a general order restraining Ms Dunstan from commencing or continuing civil proceedings in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court and in the District Court (including the Family Court) without first obtaining leave of a Judge of this Court.

[16]      This order will take effect from the date of this Judgment and continue in effect for a period of three years.19

Brewer J

19   Section 168 of the Act empowers a Judge to specify a longer period than three years, to a maximum of five years, if they are satisfied there are exceptional circumstances justifying the longer period. I am satisfied that a period of three years is justified because of the volume of Ms Dunstan’s filings and the number of them which are totally without merit. But I am not sure those factors amount to exceptional circumstances. At the end of three years a further order could be made if necessary.

SCHEDULE OF PROCEEDINGS

(a)                  in the Auckland High Court Registry, 61 proceedings;

(b)in the Tauranga High Court Registry, one proceeding;

(c)in the Rotorua High Court Registry, one proceeding;

(d)in the Hamilton High Court Registry, two proceedings;

(e)in the Wellington High Court Registry, five proceedings;

(f)in the New Plymouth High Court Registry, two proceedings;

(g)in the Christchurch High Court Registry, four proceedings;

(h)in the Court of Appeal Registry, 29 proceedings; and

(i)in the Supreme Court Registry, 27 proceedings.

Appendix One — High Court Civil Proceedings

Auckland High Court Current

Proceeding file number	Parties
CIV-2023-404-[REDACTED]	[REDACTED]
CIV-2023-404-002116	Dunstan v Fitzgerald
CIV-2023-404-[REDACTED]	[REDACTED]
CIV-2023-404-[REDACTED]	[REDACTED]
CIV-2023-404-[REDACTED]	[REDACTED]
CIV-2023-404-000605	Dunstan v Neill
CIV-2023-404-000569	Dunstan v Riddell
CIV-2023-404-000568	Dunstan v Riddell
CIV-2023-404-000566	Dunstan v Riddell
CIV-2023-404-000565	Dunstan v Riddell
CIV-2023-404-[REDACTED]	[REDACTED]
CIV-2023-404-000551	Dunstan v Riddell
CIV-2023-404-000527	Dunstan v Ritchie
CIV-2023-404-000519	Dunstan v New Zealand Law Society
CIV-2023-404-000216	Dunstan v Attorney-General
CIV-2023-404-000361	Dunstan v Auckland District Court
CIV-2022-404-002159	Dunstan v Chief Executive of the Department…
CIV-2022-404-[REDACTED]	[REDACTED]
CIV-2022-404-[REDACTED]	[REDACTED]
CIV-2022-404-[REDACTED]	[REDACTED]
CIV-2022-404-001114	Dunstan v Bank of New Zealand
CIV-2021-404-001171	Dunstan v Riddell

Auckland High Court Past

Proceeding file number	Parties	Outcome	Decision (if applicable)
CIV-2023- 404-000941	Dunstan	Review of registrar’s decision to decline documents — Dismissed by minute of Jagose J dated 23-5-23
CIV-2023- 404-000913	Dunstan	Review of registrar’s decision to decline documents – Dismissed by minute of Gordon J dated 17-5-2023
CIV-2023- 404-000856	Dunstan   v   North Shore        District Court	Appeal – Stayed by Minute of Powell J dated 20-4-2023

CIV-2023- 404-002009	Dunstan	Review of registrar’s decision to decline documents — Dismissed by judgment of Venning J dated 6-9-2023	[2023] NZHC 2499
CIV-2022- 404-001114	Dunstan v Bank of New Zealand	Summary Judgment — Dismissed per the Judgment of AJ Lester dated 2-3-2023	[2023] NZHC 200
CIV-2023- 404-000222	Dunstan v North Shore District Court	Appeal Dismissed under 5.38A — Powell J minute dated 20-4-2023
CIV-2023- 404-000520	Dunstan	Judicial review – dismissed by Judgment of Anderson J dated 2- 10-2023	[2023] NZHC 2742
CIV-2023- 404-000561	Dunstan v Manukau Court (Judge Otene)	Leave to appeal — dismissed as security for costs
CIV-2023- 404-000678	Dunstan	Appeal abandoned for failure to pay security for costs
CIV-2023- 404- [REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	Appeal application with a number of IA’s including recusal of Powell J	[REDACTED]
CIV-2022- 404- [REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	Civil Claim – Struck out	[REDACTED]
CIV-2022- 404- [REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	Application to transfer Family court proceedings – Refused	[REDACTED]
CIV-2022- 404- [REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	Judicial review – Struck out on Registrar Referral – R5.35A	[REDACTED]
CIV-2022- 404-000261	Dunstan v Attorney- General	Civil claim and Summary Judgment – Struck out on Registrar Referral – R5.35A	Minute of Powell J – 19-4-23
CIV-2022- 404- [REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	Leave to appeal out of time- Dismissed	[REDACTED]
CIV-2022- 404- [REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	Judicial review – Struck out on Registrar Referral – R5.35A	[REDACTED]
CIV-2021- 404-001192	Dunstan v Attorney- General	Civil claim and Summary Judgment – Struck out on Registrar Referral – R5.35A	Judgment [2021] NZHC 1670
CIV-2020- 404- [REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	Judicial review – Struck out	[REDACTED]

CIV-2020- 404- [REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	Habeas application – Dismissed	[REDACTED]
CIV-2020- 404- [REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	Judicial review – Dismissed	[REDACTED]
CIV-2020- 404- [REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	Appeal – Dismissed. Currently an active application for leave to appeal	[REDACTED]
CIV-2020- 404- [REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	Habeas application – dismissed	[REDACTED]
CIV-2020- 404- [REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	Judicial review – Dismissed	[REDACTED]
CIV-2020- 404- [REDACTED]	Dunstan v Neill	Appeal – Stayed	[REDACTED]

Tauranga High Court Proceedings

Proceeding file number	Parties	Outcome	Decision (if applicable)
CIV-2023- 470- [REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	Struck out	[REDACTED]

Rotorua High Court Proceedings

Proceeding file number	Parties	Outcome	Decision (if applicable)
CIV-2023- 463-000049	Dunstan v New Zealand Police	General proceeding	Dismissed- minute of Brewer J 10-8-2023

Hamilton High Court Proceeding

Proceeding file number	Parties	Outcome	Decision (if applicable)
CIV-2023- 419-000249	Dunstan    v     The District   Court   at Hamilton	Judicial review – Struck out	[2023] NZHC 2703 [2023] NZHC 2797
CIV-2023- 419-000248	Dunstan v The District Court at Hamilton	Judicial review – Struck out	[2023] NZHC 2703 [2023] NZHC 2797

Wellington High Court Proceedings

Proceeding file number Parties

CIV-2023-485-394	Dunstan v Kelly
CIV-2023-485-390	Dunstan v Wellington District Court
CIV-2023-485-[REDACTED]	[REDACTED]
CIV-2023-485-616	Dunstan v X
CIV-2023-485-617	Dunstan v IPCA

New Plymouth Proceedings

Proceeding file number	Parties
CIV-2023-443-[REDACTED]	[REDACTED]
CIV-2023-443-[REDACTED]	[REDACTED]

Christchurch Proceedings

Proceeding file number	Parties	Outcome	Decision (if applicable)
CIV-2023- 409- [REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	1.  Judicial Review — Struck out 2.  Interlocutory application for Churchman J to recuse himself and recall minute — Dismissed 3.  Interlocutory application for recusal of Churchman J — Struck out	[REDACTED]
CIV-2023- 409- [REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	1.  Judicial Review — Struck out 2.  Interlocutory application for Churchman J to recuse himself and recall minute — Dismissed 3.    Interlocutory application for recusal of Churchman J — Struck out	[REDACTED]
CIV-2023- 409-000521	Dunstan	Review of Registrar’s decision not to accept documents in Christchurch — Dismissed	N/A — decision issued by way of minute
CIV-2023- 409-000522	Dunstan	Review of Registrar’s decision not to accept documents in Christchurch — Dismissed	[2023] NZHC 2821

Appendix Two — Court of Appeal Proceedings

Proceeding file number	Parties	Outcome	Decision (if applicable)
[REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	Civil appeal — appeal dismissed	[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	Civil appeal — appeal dismissed	[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	Application for leave to appeal — leave declined	[REDACTED]
CA301/2021	W v W	Ms Dunstan made an application to access court documents on this appeal — declined
CA406/2021	Tanya Felicity Dunstan v Christina Riddell	Civil appeal — abandoned under rule 43	N/A
CA417/2021	Tanya Felicity Dunstan v Attorney- General And Anor	Civil appeal — abandoned under rule 43	N/A
[REDACTED] CA190/2022	[REDACTED] Tanya Felicity Dunstan v Auckland High Court And Ors	Civil appeal – appeal allowed. Strike out of judicial review proceeding in High Court.	[REDACTED]
		Civil appeal — appeal dismissed	[2022] NZCA 478
		Application for recall — declined	[2022] NZCA 623
[REDACTED] [REDACTED]	[REDACTED] [REDACTED]	Civil appeal — appeal dismissed	[REDACTED] N/A [REDACTED]
		Application for recall — abandoned
		Civil appeal — appeal allowed in part
[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]	[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]	Application for recall — declined	N/A [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
		R29A application for extension of time to appeal — declined
		Civil appeal — appeal allowed in part
[REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	Application for leave to appeal — appeal allowed in part	[REDACTED]
CA545/2022	Roberts v Cresswell	Ms Dunstan made an application to access court documents on this appeal — declined	[2023] NZCA 168

CA692/2022	Tanya Felicity Dunstan v Attorney- General	Civil appeal — struck out	[2023] NZCA 255
[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]	Tanya Felicity Dunstan v Attorney- General Tanya Felicity Dunstan v The Attorney-General And Ors Tanya Felicity Dunstan v Auckland District Court And Anor [REDACTED] Tanya Felicity Dunstan v Bank of New Zealand And Anor Tanya Felicity Dunstan v Auckland High Court And Ors	Interlocutory application to add the Attorney- General as a party for the purpose of representing the High Court — declined	[2023] NZCA 164
		Application to recall judgment — declined	[2023] NZCA 133
		Rule 29A application for extension of time to appeal — Dismissed	[2023] NZCA 225
		Interlocutory application to add Attorney-General as respondent — granted	[REDACTED]
		Civil appeal — appeal dismissed	[REDACTED]
		Civil appeal — appeal dismissed	[REDACTED]
		Civil appeal — appeal abandoned pursuant to rule 43	N/A
		Civil appeal — active appeal	N/A
CA554/2023 CA568/2023 CA583/2023 [REDACTED] [REDACTED]	Tanya Felicity Dunstan v Paul Keegan And Ors Tanya Felicity Dunstan v District Court at Hamilton Tanya Felicity Dunstan v Manukau Family Court And Ors [REDACTED] [REDACTED]	Civil Appeal — still active	N/A
		Civil Appeal — still active	N/A
		Civil Appeal — still active	N/A
		Civil appeal — appeal dismissed	[REDACTED]
		Civil appeal — appeal dismissed	[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	Application for leave to appeal — leave declined	[REDACTED]

Appendix Three — Supreme Court Proceedings

Proceeding file number	Parties	Outcome
[REDACTE D]	[REDACTED]	Application for leave to appeal — decision not yet issued
[REDACTE D]	[REDACTED]	Application for leave to appeal — decision not yet issued
[REDACTE D]	[REDACTED]	Application for leave to appeal — decision not yet issued
SC 29/2023	Tanya Felicity Dunstan v New Zealand Police	Application for leave to appeal — decision not yet issued
SC 29/2023 (recusal)	Tanya Felicity Dunstan v New Zealand Police	Other Interlocutory application — decision not yet issued
SC 22/2023	Tanya Felicity Dunstan v Emma Marion Gibbs	Application for leave to appeal — leave to appeal dismissed in [2023] NZSC 29
[REDACTE D]	[REDACTED]	Other Interlocutory application (recusal) — decision not yet issued
[REDACTE D]	[REDACTED]	Application for leave to appeal — decision not yet issued
[REDACTE D]	[REDACTED]	Application for leave to appeal — leave to appeal dismissed in [REDACTED]
[REDACTE D]	[REDACTED]	Application for leave to appeal — leave to appeal dismissed in [REDACTED]
[REDACTE D]	[REDACTED]	Application for leave to appeal — leave to appeal dismissed in [REDACTED]
[REDACTE D]	[REDACTED]	Application to recall judgment — recall application dismissed in [REDACTED]
[REDACTE D]	[REDACTED]	Application for leave to appeal — leave to appeal dismissed in [REDACTED]
SC 114/2022	Tanya Felicity Dunstan v Auckland High Court And Ors	Application for leave to appeal — leave to appeal dismissed in [2023] NZSC 3
SC 37/2022 (recall)	Tanya Felicity Dunstan v Attorney-General	Application to recall judgment — recall application dismissed in [2023] NZSC 39
SC 37/2022	Tanya Felicity Dunstan v Attorney-General	Application for leave to appeal — leave to appeal dismissed in [2022] NZSC 111
SC 29/2022 (recall)	Tanya Felicity Dunstan v Christina Riddell And Ors	Application to recall judgment — recall application dismissed in [2022] NZSC 67
SC 29/2022	Tanya Felicity Dunstan v Christina Riddell And Ors	Application for leave to appeal — leave to appeal dismissed in [2022] NZSC 61
SC 160/2021	Tanya Felicity Dunstan v Attorney General And Anor	Application for leave to appeal — leave to appeal dismissed in [2022] NZSC 3
[REDACTED]	[REDACTED]	Application for leave to appeal — leave to appeal dismissed in [REDACTED]