Singletone v Parsonstead - [2025] NZHC 959

NOTE: ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE https:// court/after-the-family-court/restrictions-on-publishing-information/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2025-483-12

[2025] NZHC 959

BETWEEN
LEILA SINGLETONE

Applicant

AND

BRINDLEY PARSONSTEAD

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

L Singletone in person

Judgment:

17 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF McHERRON J

[1] On 25 March 2025, Leila Singletone filed a notice of appeal and an application for an extension of time in respect of a decision of 23 June 2021 decision of Judge Matheson in the Family Court granting a protection order against her in favour of Brindley Parsonstead.1

[2] These documents have been referred to me under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016, on the basis that the Registrar believes that, on the face of the proceeding tendered for filing, the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court.

1 Parsonstead v Singletone [2021] NZFC 6008. Parties’ names have been anonymised in this judgment.

SINGLETONE v PARSONSTEAD [2025] NZHC 959 [17 April 2025]

[3] Under r 5.35B of the High Court Rules, if I am satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of process, I may:

(a)strike it out;

(b)stay it until further order;

(c)direct that documents for service be kept by the Court but not served until the stay is lifted; or

(d)direct that no application to lift the stay be heard until the person who filed the proceeding files further documents as specified in the order.

The documents

[4] Both the notice of appeal and the accompanying application for extension of time are confusing, largely unstructured, and diverge from addressing the relevant points into a stream of consciousness.

[5] In the notice of appeal, Ms Singletone specifies her ground of appeal as “that I did not stab or beat up [Mr Parsonstead] over a period of 5 years.” She states that the relief she seeks is the dismissal of the protection order in favour of a protection order for the whole family “such that…if one raises a hand to another of the other — then they must leave the premises”. She then goes on to argue she was merely trying to “amend bridges burnt” rather than harass Mr Parsonstead, and lists grievances against police and Oranga Tamariki, including in relation to separate matters involving losing custody and access to her children, and her arrest. She denies ever having hurt Mr Parsonstead.

[6] In the application for extension of time, Ms Singletone says she had been trying to find a good lawyer for many years to take all her “all the way to the Supreme Court and perhaps...all the way to England” to the Privy Council. She says that since she was not a fully qualified lawyer, it didn’t dawn on her that an appeal to the High Court was her only and best option. She goes on…

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 Singletone v Parsonstead

Details

AGLC: Singletone v Parsonstead [2025] NZHC 959
Case: [2025] NZHC 959
Decision Date: 17 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leila Singletone appealed a decision by Judge Matheson in the Family Court that granted a protection order in favour of Brindley Parsonstead. Singletone filed a notice of appeal and an application for an extension of time on 25 March 2025. The proceedings were referred to the High Court because the Registrar believed the documents were plainly an abuse of process. The court had to determine whether the proceedings were an abuse of process under the High Court Rules. Specifically, the court had to determine whether it would be manifestly unfair to Parsonstead to respond to the notice of appeal and whether the court would be viewed as having poor control of its processes if it allowed the documents to be regarded as proper documents. The notice of appeal and application for extension of time were largely incomprehensible and did not disclose a valid ground of appeal. The documents were also completely irrelevant to the decision Singletone sought to appeal and made serious and unsubstantiated allegations against a number of institutions and individuals. The documents did not fully accord with the requirements of a notice of appeal or an application for extension of time. The court found it would be manifestly unfair to require Parsonstead to respond to Singletone’s allegations through these proceedings. The court struck out the proceedings as an abuse of process.

The court struck out the proceedings as an abuse of process. Singletone has the right to appeal this decision.

Orders