Slavich v District Court at Hamilton

[2015] NZHC 964

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CIV-2015-419-114 [2015] NZHC 964

IN THE MATTER	of s 88B of the Judicature Act 1908
AND
IN THE MATTER	of an application for leave to institute review of a Hamilton District Court decision
BETWEEN	JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH Applicant
AND	DISTRICT COURT AT HAMILTON Respondent

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Appearances:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	7 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 May 2015 at 4:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Copy to:               Applicant in person

SLAVICH v DISTRICT COURT AT HAMILTON [2015] NZHC 964 [7 May 2015]

Introduction

[1]      Mr Slavich is a vexatious litigant.   On 27 March 2013, this Court ordered

(inter alia):

No civil proceedings shall, without the leave of this Court, be instituted by [Mr Slavich] in any Court either on his own behalf or in any fiduciary or representative capacity.

[2]      Mr Slavich now seeks leave of the Court to institute a civil proceeding.  The proceeding would be an application for judicial review of a decision of a District Court Judge not to recall the Judge’s decision not to recall a previous decision to refuse to allow Mr Slavich to commence a private prosecution against a Judge of this Court, Heath J.

[3]      In support of his application, Mr Slavich has filed, among other documents, a comprehensive affidavit.

[4]      This judgment decides Mr Slavich’s application for leave to institute the

judicial review proceeding.

Discussion

[5]      The history behind Mr Slavich’s wish to prosecute Heath J is very lengthy.  I will not set it out here.  Suffice to say that Heath J, in a Judge alone criminal trial, entered convictions against Mr Slavich.   From the “summary of facts” annexed to Mr Slavich’s affidavit, I see that he contends that Heath J conducted himself during the trial “with criminal intent to pervert the course of justice”.

[6]      On 28 November 2014, in the District Court at Hamilton, Judge PR Connell ordered the Registrar to refuse to accept the charges Mr Slavich sought to bring against Heath J (and also against Judge RL Spear of the District Court).   Judge Connell held that the proposed prosecutions would be an abuse of the process of the Court.  That is undoubtedly correct.  The allegations raised by Mr Slavich are not tenable on their face and clearly amount to yet another attempt to indulge the obsession which led to him being declared a vexatious litigant.

[7]      Nevertheless, Mr Slavich applied to Judge Connell to recall his decision. The application had no merit.   It was, as the Judge remarked, a tortuous reiteration of arguments previously put.   By judgment dated 25 February 2015, Judge Connell refused to recall his decision.

[8]      Nothing daunted, Mr Slavich filed an application for Judge Connell to recall his decision not to recall.  Judge Connell’s response, through the Registrar, was a Minute saying:1

1.4.15 The proceedings in this Court are at an end.   I do not intend to entertain any further applications or proceedings pertaining to them.

[9]      Mr Slavich contends that this peremptory decision of Judge Connell is reviewable because the Judge did not give reasons as required by law and that his right to natural justice has been breached because Mr Slavich cannot assess the decision to decide whether the Judge took into account irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account relevant matters.

[10]     Mr Slavich’s second application for recall is as flawed as his first application for recall.  It is simply argumentative.  The Judge was right to dismiss it and, in the circumstances, there was no need to give further reasons (as he had done, patiently, in his judgment of 25 February 2015).

Decision

[11]     Mr Slavich, by the Court filings I have described above, demonstrates why he has been declared a vexatious litigant.  His application to commence the proceeding

is denied.

Brewer J

1      I have not seen the actual Minute.  I take this quote from Mr Slavich’s draft statement of claim

for judicial review and deem it to be accurate for the purpose of this judgment.