Reekie v Harrison

[2014] NZHC 2162

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-2234 [2014] NZHC 2162

BETWEEN

NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE

Applicant

AND

JUDGE G M HARRISON Firs Respondent

DR MHAIRI DUFF Second Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	9 September 2014

JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 September 2014 at 4.30 p.m., pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ………………………….

REEKIE v JUDGE G M HARRISON [2014] NZHC 2162 [9 September 2014]

[1]      Mr Reekie is  currently imprisoned  and  seeks  a judicial  review of Judge Harrison’s decision in the District Court. A hand-written statement of claim was filed with the High Court. The Registrar returned the filed documents to Mr Reekie on the grounds that the contents was not typed and that the Notice of Proceedings was not signed.  Mr  Reekie  then  filed  an  interlocutory  application  for  review  of  the Registrar’s refusal to file a document tendered for filing, pursuant to r 2.11(1)(c) of the High Court Rules. This application is also hand-written, and is the subject of this judgment.

[2]      Rule 5.4 of the High Court Rules states:

5.4      Contents to be typed, etc

(1)       The  contents  of  each  document  must  be  legible  and  clearly typewritten,  printed,  or  produced  in  permanent  form  by photocopying.

(2)       Despite subclause  (1), handwriting may be used for the date of the document.

(3)      Subclause (1) does not apply to the signature on a document.

[3]      In respect of the Notice of Proceedings, the original filed by Mr Reekie was not signed. Mr Reekie has since filed a new, signed Notice of Proceedings. The only question for determination is whether the Registrar  was wrong to refuse to file Mr Reekie’s  statement  of claim  for judicial  review solely because it  was  hand- written rather than typed on a computer.

[4]      Mr Reekie seeks relief.  Rule 5.2(1) provides:

5.2	Non-complying documents
(1)	A document that does not comply with rules 5.3 to 5.16 may be received for filing only by leave of a Judge or the Registrar.
[5]	Mr	Reekie’s   documents   are   written  neatly   and   legibly,   and   can   be

photocopied or scanned so they can be stored in permanent form. They meet the purpose of r 5.4.

[6]      Mr Reekie was is unable to produce typed documents.   He is currently imprisoned and has no access to a computer. The prison where he is serving his sentence does not provide computers.

[7]       It would be unfair to Mr Reekie to deny him an application for judicial review solely because of such external circumstances. His situation is similar to the one in Toia v Prison Manager,1  a judgment of this court released earlier this year. There a prisoner also sought judicial review with a hand-written application. The prison did have computers, however prison staff did not let him type the application because they were told earlier by the Auckland High Court that the Court would

accept hand-written documents. The hand-written application for judicial review was accepted without any concerns from the Court and the case proceeded as normal.

[8]      Mr Reekie’s application is successful. The Registrar is to accept Mr Reekie’s

hand-written statement  of claim  for judicial  review,  and  any other  hand-written documents Mr Reekie may need to file in the future.

1      Toia v Prison Manager [2014] NZHC 867.