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 to detail her difficulties in securing legal aid, complaints that her private letters had been read by lawyers and police, and her

ambitions to become the National Party Candidate for Nelson. Ms Singletone also makes allegations against the Prime Minister, his wife, and a mental health nurse.

[7]    At the end of the application, she notes she is not a lawyer and that “aside from getting templates from the court staff and the national Courthouse line sent by email, I don’t really know what I am doing”. She says she thought and was advised that she should file her own application for a protection order, which she sent to Whanganui but never heard back about.

Discussion

[8]    When deciding whether to strike out a proceeding under rr 5.35A and 5.35B of the High Court Rules, the Court must determine:2

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

(b)whether right thinking people would regard this Court as exercising very poor control of its processes if it were to allow the document to be regarded as a proper document, or it were to allow the proceeding to proceed further.3

[9]    The power under r 5.35B must be exercised sparingly and only in the clearest of cases, given that the rule contemplates a litigant being denied the fundamental right of access to the courts, with the possibility of the proceeding being halted before it is even served.4

[10]   When considering the application of r 5.35B, the Court must take into account the broad public interest and private interests of individuals who may otherwise be drawn into entirely unmeritorious proceedings. That must be weighed against the right of a litigant to bring proceedings.5

2      Mathiesen v Slevin [2018] NZHC 1032, (2018) 25 PRNZ 116 at [6] citing Mathiesen v Fildes

[2017] NZHC 2258.

3      O’Neill v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2023] NZCA 152 at [30].

4      Te Wakaminenga o Nga Hapu ki Waitangi v Waitangi National Trust Board [2023] NZCA 63.

5      Jones v New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Ltd [2021] NZHC 3220 at [20].

[11]   Neither the notice of appeal nor the application for extension of time discloses a clear basis for the appeal being brought, let alone being brought four years out of time. The documents also do not point to any error in Judge Matheson’s decision justifying an appeal being granted. Much of the contents of both documents are completely irrelevant to the decision Ms Singletone seeks to appeal, and make serious and unsubstantiated allegations against a number of institutions and individuals.

[12]   Accordingly, I consider it would be manifestly unfair for Mr Parsonstead to have to respond to this notice of appeal, given it is largely incomprehensible, does not disclose a valid ground of appeal and would require him to once again become engaged in legal proceedings with a person who has been harassing him for some time. As is apparent from the application Ms Singletone faces charges for breaching a final protection order. Her belated appeal is seeking to overturn the order on which the charges are based is therefore a pre-emptive collateral attack on the outcome of those proceedings, which is impermissible.6 Even if Ms Singletone’s notice of appeal and application were allowed to be filed, it is doubtful she would be given leave to appeal, given the significant length of time since Judge Matheson’s decision and the lack of reasons justifying this delay.7

[13]   The documents also do not fully accord with the requirements of a notice of appeal or an application for extension of time, as outlined in the High Court Rules.8 Although the decision sought to be appealed was filed alongside the documents, it was not identified with sufficient clarity in the notice of appeal, with neither the date nor reference number of the decision stated. As already noted, the grounds of appeal are also not sufficiently noted, nor do the documents conform to the form and structure expected. I consequently consider that the Court would be viewed as having poor control of its processes if it allowed the documents to be regarded as proper documents. Further, it would be improper to require Mr Parsonstead to respond to Ms Singletone’s allegations through these proceedings. Her proposed appeal is not capable of being amended to turn it into a valid claim.

6      Moananui v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2021] NZHC 1089.

7      Almond v Read [2017] NZSC 80, [2017] 1 NZLR 801.

8      See r 20.9 of the High Court Rules.

Outcome

[14]   I therefore strike out these proceedings pursuant to r 5.35B(2)(a) of the High Court Rules.

[15]Ms Singletone has the right to appeal this decision.

McHerron J