Slavich v Auckland District Court

[2016] NZHC 1882

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-001726 [2016] NZHC 1882

BETWEEN

JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH

Plaintiff

AND

AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT First Defendant

MARK LESLIE COOPER, CHRISTOPHER HOLDEN TOOGOOD AND RHYS HARRISON

Second Defendants

Hearing:	on the papers
Judgment:	12 August 2016

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 12 August 2016 at 4.30pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Copy to:  Plaintiff

SLAVICH v AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT [2016] NZHC 1882 [12 August 2016]

[1]      On 26 July 2016 I delivered a decision refusing the plaintiff leave to bring proceedings against the Auckland District Court, and Justices Mark Leslie Cooper, Christopher Holden Toogood and Rhys Harrison.

[2]      The plaintiff has now applied for a recall of the decision.  He argues in terms of the principle in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) that there is a “very special reason justice requires that the judgment be recalled”.1

[3]      The reason he gives is that he must exhaust all legitimate domestic remedies for breach of rights before he can bring a complaint before the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) under the first optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.   He asserts he has been the victim of judicial corruption, and he wants to make that complaint and the alleged adverse affect it has had on his rights to the UNHRC.

[4]      I have carefully considered the recall application.  It does not qualify in terms of the well settled principles for recall of judgments.

[5]      The refusal of this Court to grant the plaintiff leave to bring the intended proceedings means he cannot pursue the remedies he seeks to pursue against the named defendants in the domestic jurisdiction, which leaves open for him the opportunity to complain to UNHRC if he so wishes.

[6]      Accordingly there is no basis for recalling the refusal to permit the plaintiff to bring the intended proceedings against the named defendants.

[7]      It follows that the application for recall is refused.

……………………………..

Duffy J

1      Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632.