Legal Research
Cases
Sixtus v Ardern

Sixtus v Ardern

Case [2022] NZHC 1161 24 May 2022

Civil Litigation & Procedure

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-2022-485-134 [2022] NZHC 1161

BETWEEN
CATHERINE SIXTUS

First Applicant

KIRI CAMPBELL
Second Applicant

AND

JACINDA ARDERN

First Respondent

KRIS FAAFOI

Second Respondent

ANDREW LITTLE

Third Respondent

ASHLEY BLOOMFIELD

Fourth Respondent

Hearing: 23 May 2022

Appearances:

First applicant in person

P J Gunn and R M McMenamin for the Respondents

Judgment:

24 May 2022

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

(Strike-out)

[1] By interlocutory application dated 19 May 2022 the respondents apply to strike out the applicants’ statement of claim under r 15.1 of the High Court Rules 2016 on the basis that the statement of claim discloses no reasonably arguable case, that it is likely to cause prejudice and that it is vexatious. The application is opposed by the applicants.

SIXTUS v ARDERN [2022] NZHC 1161 [24 May 2022]

Background

[2] The applicants’ statement of claim was filed and served in March 2022. The nature of the claim advanced is not clear, but it is apparent that it is a claim for declaratory relief. The declarations sought are pleaded in the following terms:

1. Do pray A declaration to consolidate the 1865–1908 native rights Acts and including a new declaration to deem European progeny and Native ma-ori progeny, posterities and New Zealand people - to be deemed to be natural-born subjects of (H)er Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of United Kingdom and Ireland as it pleased Almighty God.

And to declare that the Native AB-original “will” of 1865 and European Ancient “will” of 1688 English speakers of New Zealand to (t)heir progeny be protected by the Queens Courts of Law to continue to extend over the persons and properties of all Her Majesty’s subjects within New Zealand.

2. Do pray A declaration to the affect clearly stating the applicants’ Ancient 1688 subject right under Almighty God exists pursuant to s 28 Other
rights and freedoms not affected of the 1990 New Zealand bill of right ordinary law, without ordering any specific action pursuant to section 2 of the Declaratory Judgements Act 1908.

3. Do pray A declaration to the affect that when two subordinating laws (1993 electoral Act 55 (b)(c) and 55 AA) conflict each other with both an argument for the declaration of indubitable and progeny right that pleased Almighty God and an argument for the declaration of inconsistency fundamental right.

Which right shall be deemed, and taken to be allowed?

Which declaration whatsoever shall serve their Majesties for all times to
come?

4. Do pray A declaration that every particular of the New Zealand parliament, including High Courts and all Ministers to dispense with laws and exercise of late in clear language and particularly 1688 Subjects Bill of Rights New Zealand or 1990 New Zealand Bill of Rights or “Fundamental Bill of Rights New Zealand” and to avoid the confusion that has been cruelly and deceptively dispensed of late:

So help me God

[3] The proceedings were first called before Palmer J 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 Sixtus v Ardern

Details

AGLC: Sixtus v Ardern [2022] NZHC 1161
Case: [2022] NZHC 1161
Decision Date: 24 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was faced with an interlocutory application brought by the respondents seeking to strike out the applicants' statement of claim. The applicants, Catherine Sixtus and Kiri Campbell, filed a statement of claim in March 2022, seeking various declarations related to native rights, the 1990 New Zealand Bill of Rights, and the 1688 English speakers' rights. The respondents, Jacinda Ardern, Kris Faafoi, Andrew Little, and Ashley Bloomfield, argued that the statement of claim was unintelligible, likely to cause prejudice, and vexatious, and therefore should be struck out under rule 15.1 of the High Court Rules 2016. The applicants opposed the application, with Ms. Sixtus arguing that the claim was appropriate and that the applicants' legal strategy initially focused on consolidating legislation passed in 1865 and 1908. The court found that the statement of claim was unintelligible and that many of the grievances listed did not fall within the jurisdiction of the court, as they involved matters of policy and criticisms of Parliamentary enactments. The deficiencies were found to be too fundamental to be remedied by amendment, and the proceedings were struck out as an abuse of process. The respondents were entitled to costs, which could be sought by filing a memorandum within 10 working days, with a response from the applicants within a further 10 working days.

The court considered the principles relevant to striking out a claim, which include the requirement for the pleadings to disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action or case, to avoid prejudice or delay, and to not be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process of the court. The court found that the statement of claim was unintelligible and that the applicants' memorandum and oral arguments did not clarify the position. The court also found that many of the grievances listed involved matters of policy and criticisms of Parliamentary enactments, which are not within the jurisdiction of the court. The deficiencies were considered to be too fundamental to be remedied by amendment, and the proceedings were struck out as an abuse of process. The court noted that the applicants were not lawyers and that some latitude was appropriate, but there needed to be some proper case advanced to respond to, and the pleadings fell well short of that requirement in this case. The court emphasised that the rights of parties responding to litigation must also be respected, and it is unjust to compel a party to respond to a proceeding that is unintelligible and is not capable of repair.

Orders