Slavich v Collins - [2023] NZHC 2488

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2011-419-000463

[2023] NZHC 2488

BETWEEN
JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH

Plaintiff

AND

DAVID BRIAN COLLINS CAMERON LESLIE MANDER CHERYL RAEWYN GWYN

MATTHEW SIMON RUSSEL PALMER
First Defendants

CHRISTOPHER FRANCIS FINLAYSON
Second Defendant

REGISTRAR OF WELLINGTON DISTRICT COURT
Third Defendant

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Fourth Defendant

Hearing: 12 July 2023

Appearances:

Plaintiff in Person

M L Dillon for the Fourth Defendant

Judgment:

5 September 2023

JUDGMENT (No.2) OF POWELL J

[Application to strike out application to recall]

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 September 2023 at 4.30 pm pursuant to
R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………..
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH v DAVID BRIAN COLLINS [2023] NZHC 2488 [5 September 2023]

[1] On 1 May 2012 Priestley J struck out proceedings brought by Mr Slavich which had sought relief in three broad areas (the judgment of Priestly J). The Judge summarised:1
The three broad areas in which the plaintiff seeks relief are:

(a)Restraining the first defendants from filing any further notices of stay under s 159 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 relating to various prosecutions which the plaintiff may bring

(b)Requiring the Attorney-General to seek advice from counsel, other than the first defendants and Crown Law, on the issue of whether or not there should be intervention under s 159;

(c)Preventing the Wellington District Court Registrar from accepting any documents filed by the defendants which breach the orders sought in
(a) and (b)

[2]His Honour concluded:2

Quite apart from the r 15.1(1)(a) limb, a proceedings can be struck out under r 15.1(1)(d) if it is otherwise an abuse of process. I consider both limbs are engaged. Scrutinising the three declarations (the originally pleaded orders) the plaintiff seeks (supra[4]) there is no basis on which this Court could properly restrain the first defendants from seeking stays in the District Court under s 159 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. The statement of claim and the background to related proceedings dealt with in the strike out judgment of Andrews J paint a picture of serial private prosecutions initiated by the plaintiff. As each one was stayed, similar to the appearance of Hydra’s heads, further prosecution would be launched. There is absolutely no basis in the pleadings or in the context of the plaintiff’s private prosecutions on which the application for the first declaration could succeed. The underlying factual matrix for both the private prosecutions and this proceedings depends solely on an aspect of the plaintiff’s 2006 criminal trial. That aspect has been dealt with exhaustively by appellate courts and is at an end.

With regard to the second declaration sought, for obvious constitutional reasons this Court would not attempt to order or direct the Attorney-General as to the source of his legal advice. Nor on the basis of either the pleadings or the factual context is there any prospect of this Court directing the Registrar of the Wellington District Court from filing a further stay of…

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 Slavich v Collins

Details

AGLC: Slavich v Collins [2023] NZHC 2488
Case: [2023] NZHC 2488
Decision Date: 5 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Slavich v Collins, the plaintiff, John Kenneth Slavich, sought to recall a previous judgment made by Priestley J, which had dismissed his initial proceedings. The defendants, including the Attorney-General, applied to strike out Slavich's application to recall on the basis that it constituted an abuse of the Court's process. The legal issues at hand involved whether Slavich's application met the criteria for recall under the High Court Rules 2016 and whether it constituted an abuse of the Court's process.

The Court held that Slavich's application to recall was an abuse of process, as it was not supported by fresh evidence relevant to the original judgment and did not address any issue with that judgment. The evidence provided by Slavich, consisting of affidavits from a legal executive and the former Crown Solicitor, pertained to issues from his criminal trial, not the matters decided by Priestley J. Furthermore, Slavich's primary goal appeared to be to pressure the Attorney-General into entering confidential settlement negotiations, which is not a legitimate purpose for an application to recall.

Given these findings, the Court ruled that Slavich's application for recall was an abuse of the Court's process and was therefore struck out. The Court also ordered that the Attorney-General was entitled to costs on a 2B basis, with the quantum of costs to be determined if any dispute arose. This decision effectively dismisses Slavich's attempt to revisit matters that had already been conclusively determined by higher courts.

Orders