Rogers v Melanie Baker Law - [2024] NZHC 3763

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2024-485-000792

[2024] NZHC 3763

BETWEEN
MARSHALL ROGERS

Plaintiff

AND

MELANIE BAKER LAW

Defendant

Hearing: (On the papers)

Counsel:

Plaintiff in person

Judgment:

11 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

[1] Mr Rogers has filed a statement of claim naming “Melanie Baker Law” as defendant, which alleges:

On June 14th 2024, Melanie Baker Law spread uninvestigated defamation against me (using schoolkids) to thwart the Parentorder-deliberation in July 2024.

Cause of action (is perhaps wrong information from an unknown source) but t’was cunningly passed immediately to Child-lawyer – not the CPT, Police or Judiciary.

I have now lost nearly 6months valuable time as a dad (prescribed in JBlacks’ deliberation) and seek w/o notice redress of a midweek-handover every week to catchup that prescription of JBlack.

[2] The statement of claim goes on to say that the “uninvestigated defamation” to which the claim relates “has thwarted the legitimacy of the resultant parentorder” of Judge Black in the Family Court in July 2024.

ROGERS v MELANIE BAKER LAW [2024] NZHC 3763 [11 December 2024]

[3] It therefore appears this claim relates to Mr Rogers’ dissatisfaction with the decision of Judge Black in the Family Court on 31 July 2024, reducing Mr Rogers’ contact with his children from twice a week to twice a month (the Family Court decision).1

[4] Mr Rogers sought to appeal against that decision in August 2024. However, he failed to pay security for costs and the appeal was therefore abandoned pursuant to s 126(3) of the District Court Act 2016.

[5] These proceedings have been referred to me as Duty Judge under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016. Following such a referral, a Judge has the powers provided for in r 5.35B:

5.35B Judge’s powers to make orders and give directions before service

(1)This rule applies if a Judge to whom a Registrar refers a proceeding under rule 5.35A is satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the court.

(2)The Judge may, on his or her own initiative, 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 be 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).

…

[6] In Mathiesen v Slevin the Court explained that deciding whether to strike out a proceeding so referred involved determining the following questions:2

1 [Rogers] v [Phillips] [2024] NZFC 9742; as described in [Rogers] v [Phillips] HC Wellington, 8 September 2024 (Minute of Boldt…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rogers v Melanie Baker Law and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZHC 3763
Decision Date: 11 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Marshall Rogers filed a statement of claim against Melanie Baker Law, alleging that the defendant spread uninvestigated defamation against him, which he claims led to a reduction in his contact with his children. The claim is tied to the outcome of a Family Court decision, which reduced Mr Rogers' contact with his children from twice a week to twice a month. Mr Rogers also sought to appeal this decision, but the appeal was abandoned after he failed to pay the required security for costs.

The legal issues in this case revolve around whether the proceedings against Melanie Baker Law are an abuse of process and whether the statement of claim is incomprehensible and thus an abuse of the court's process. The court had to determine whether it would be manifestly unfair to Melanie Baker Law to require a response, and whether it would be considered poor control of the court's processes to allow the matter to proceed. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether Mr Rogers was using the proceedings to challenge the Family Court decision indirectly, thereby circumventing the abandonment of his appeal.

The court found that the statement of claim was incomprehensible and did not properly identify Melanie Baker Law's involvement in the Family Court proceedings or the specific defamatory statements. The court also noted that if the statements were made by lawyers in the Family Court, they would be protected by absolute privilege. The relief sought by Mr Rogers, which was to reinstate midweek contact with his children, indicated that he was attempting to challenge the Family Court decision through this proceeding, which the court deemed an abuse of process. Consequently, the court ordered the proceedings to be struck out under rule 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016, as it was an abuse of the court's process. The court also directed the Registrar to inform the defendant of the decision and noted that Mr Rogers has the right to appeal this decision.

Orders