Sax v Campbell - [2021] NZHC 357

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CIV-2020-470-000024

[2021] NZHC 357

BETWEEN
JANINE DAVINA SAX

Appellant/Respondent

AND

MELODY ANNE CAMPBELL

First Respondent/Applicant

AND

DISTRICT COURT AT TAURANGA

Second Respondent

Hearing: (On the papers)

Counsel:

Appellant/Respondent in Person

David O’Neill for the First Respondent/Applicant Second Respondent abides the decision of the Court

Judgment:

5 March 2021

JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

This judgment was delivered me on 5 March 2021 at 11:00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar / Deputy Registrar Date:

SAX v CAMPBELL & ANOR [2021] NZHC 357 [5 March 2021]

Introduction

[1] This is a case with many moving parts. I have already determined interlocutory matters stemming from Ms Sax’s judicial review1 of the District Court’s refusal to strike out an application made by Ms Campbell under the Harassment Act 1977 (“the Harassment Act”).2 I have refused Sax’s application for suppression orders relative to that judgment, but there are further matters to be determined on a series of miscellaneous, but related, applications.

[2] There have been some delays in the resolution of these other matters caused by various factors including COVID-19, the Courts’ Christmas break, and the way in which Ms Sax’s proceedings and her various applications have been advanced and presented. This has also been compounded by the fact that Ms Sax has chosen to represent herself throughout. Her memoranda and affidavits are voluminous. They are repetitive and, in most cases, unfocused relative to the issues engaged. In parts they are highly critical and abusive of others. Documents have been filed which are procedurally irregular, incorrectly formatted, or simply irrelevant. Regardless, every effort has been made in this consolidated judgment to identify and deal with all of Ms Sax’s outstanding applications. This has not been a straightforward exercise. Despite that, having carefully reviewed the very extensive Court file this matter now occupies, it seems Ms Sax has three remaining applications for determination. These are:

(a)19 June 2020 application for recall (“the Recall application”) of the Security for Costs and Joinder decision of 11 June 2020 (“the Security and Joinder decision”);

(b)9 July 2020 application for Leave to Appeal the Security and Joinder decision (“the Security Leave application”); and

1 Sax v Campbell [2020] NZHC 1297.
2 Campbell v Sax [2020] NZDC 1543.

(c)application for Leave to Appeal the 23 November 2020 Minute declining an application for suppression (“the Suppression Minute”) (“the Suppression Leave application”).

[3] The respondent’s application for costs on the Security and Joinder decision (“the Costs application”) is also outstanding.

[4]All four applications are determined in this judgment.

Background

Introduction

[5] Ms Sax and Ms Campbell were neighbours on the same road in a semi-rural area near Tauranga. Although their relationship was initially cordial, this changed, according to Ms Campbell after Ms Sax began breeding rabbits at her address some time after September 2016. Sinister accusations revolving around the rabbits were levelled at Ms Campbell by Ms Sax, leading…

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 Sax v Campbell

Details

AGLC: Sax v Campbell [2021] NZHC 357
Case: [2021] NZHC 357
Decision Date: 5 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This is a case between Ms Sax and Ms Campbell, neighbours who have had an ongoing dispute since Ms Sax began breeding rabbits at her property. Ms Sax has applied for judicial review of a decision of Judge Cameron refusing to strike out an application for orders made by Ms Campbell under the Harassment Act 1997. Ms Sax has also made several other applications to the High Court in the context of these proceedings. The court has been required to determine the applications made by Ms Sax for recall of a decision ordering her to pay security for costs and leave to appeal that decision, an application for leave to appeal the refusal to make suppression orders and an application for costs on the Security and Joinder decision. The court dismissed all of Ms Sax’s applications. It found that there was no arguable error of fact or law in the earlier decision which would justify further delay to these already protracted proceedings. The court found that the application for leave to appeal the refusal to make suppression orders fell well short of meeting the threshold for a grant of leave. It also found that the publicity given to the decision represented a fair and balanced account of the contents of the decision. The court awarded costs of $12,830.50 against Ms Sax.

Orders