Legal Research
Cases
Richard v Beresford

Richard v Beresford

Case [2023] NZHC 500 14 March 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2023-485-116

[2023] NZHC 500

BETWEEN
RICHARD

Plaintiff

AND

RICHARD JOHN BERESFORD c/- REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Defendant

Hearing: On the Papers

Counsel:

Plaintiff in person Defendant in person

Judgment:

14 March 2023

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1] On 1 March 2023, “richard”, described as the “complainant”, presented to the Wellington High Court a “Bill in Chancery” (which I will refer to as “the claim”) together with an unsworn affidavit in support. The matter has been referred to me as Duty Judge by the Registrar under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016.

[2]Rule 5.35A provides:

(1)This rule applies if a Registrar believes that, on the face of a proceeding tendered for filing, the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the court.

(2)The Registrar must accept the proceeding for filing if it meets the formal requirements for documents set out in rules 5.3 to 5.16.

(3)However, the Registrar may,—

RICHARD v BERESFORD c/- REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2023] NZHC 500 [14 March 2023]

(a)as soon as practicable after accepting the proceeding for filing, refer it to a Judge for consideration under rule 5.35B; and

(b)until a Judge has considered the proceeding under that rule, decline to sign and release the notice of proceeding and attached memorandum for the plaintiff or the applicant (as appropriate) to serve the proceeding.

[3] Rule 5.35B(2) provides that the Court may, on its own initiative, make an order or give directions so that the proceeding is disposed of or proceeds in a way that complies with the Rules. This includes an order under r 15.1 striking out or staying the proceeding.

[4] The power to strike out a proceeding under r 5.35B is applied sparingly, but it may be used as necessary, to protect defendants from oppressive proceedings, or to protect public confidence in the administration of justice. It is usually appropriate for the Court to ask the following questions:1

(a)whether it would be manifestly unfair to the intended defendant that they be required to respond; and

(b)whether right thinking people would regard this Court as exercising very poor control of its processes for it to allow the complainant’s document to be treated as a proper document.

[5] Overall, rules 5.35A–5.35C set out a process by which proceedings that are plainly an abuse of process may be considered by the Court before service on an intended defendant. Their purpose is to ensure that the Court’s processes are not used inappropriately and to avoid the imposition of the requirement to respond on an intended defendant to a proceeding that ought not to have been brought.

The claim

[6] The claim is lengthy and sometimes difficult to understand. It does not comply with the High Court Rules 2016 and indeed asserts that Court rules are not to apply. It

1 Siemer v Registrar of Supreme Court [2019] NZHC 2345 at [6]; Mathiesen v Slevin [2017] NZHC…

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 Richard v Beresford

Details

AGLC: Richard v Beresford [2023] NZHC 500
Case: [2023] NZHC 500
Decision Date: 14 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand dealt with an unusual case presented by "richard" against "RICHARD JOHN BERESFORD c/- Registrar-General of New Zealand". The plaintiff, identified as "richard", presented a claim in the form of a Bill in Chancery, which the court found to be incoherent and non-compliant with the High Court Rules 2016. The plaintiff claimed that the court should change the status of "RICHARD JOHN BERESFORD" from living to deceased, which he claimed was represented in his birth certificate. The claim was viewed as an attempt to espouse the "dual personality" or "Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument" theories, which the court has consistently rejected as legally unfounded.

The court was required to decide whether the claim was an abuse of process and if it should be struck out before it was served on the defendant. The court considered the principles governing the striking out of proceedings under rule 5.35B, including whether it would be manifestly unfair to the defendant to require a response and whether the court's processes were being misused. The court also had to determine whether the claim was an improper collateral challenge to existing family proceedings concerning the plaintiff's children.

The court found that the claim was an abuse of process as it did not articulate a valid cause of action and sought orders the court could not grant. The claim was viewed as an improper collateral challenge to existing family proceedings and there was no true defendant to the claim. The court also noted that the claim was based on the rejected "dual personality" or "Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument" theories. As a result, the court struck out the claim under rule 5.35B, noting that the plaintiff had a right of appeal against this decision.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's claim be struck out, in accordance with rule 5.35B(3), and noted that the plaintiff had a right of appeal against this decision. The court also encouraged the plaintiff to engage in the family proceedings currently before the court to pursue his concerns regarding his children and to seek legal representation if necessary.

Orders