Smyth-Davoren v Parker

[2018] NZHC 3135

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2018-485-904

[2018] NZHC 3135

BETWEEN

DWAYNE RUSSELL WARAKIHI MAAKA SMYTH-DAVOREN

Plaintiff

AND

DAVID PARKER

First Defendant

JACINDA ARDERN
Second Defendant

ANDREW LITTLE
Third Defendant

PATSY REDDY
Fourth Defendant

VICKI McCALL

Fifth Defendant

On papers
Judgment:	30 November 2018

JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

Introduction

[1]    Mr Smyth-Davoren has presented a statement of claim to the Registry for filing. It has been referred to me under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016 to consider whether it ought to be rejected as an abuse of process under r 5.35B.

SMYTH-DAVOREN v PARKER [2018] NZHC 3135 [30 November 2018]

[2]    Two unrelated proceedings initiated by Mr Smyth-Davoren were recently struck out as an abuse of process by Mallon J.1

The statement of claim

[3]    As with the proceedings before Mallon J, Mr Smyth-Davoren purports to file under a multitude of statutes with wide-ranging subject matter. Also in common with those proceedings are the four parties purportedly named as defendants.

[4]    The nature of the  claim  is,  however,  slightly  different.  As  background, Mr Smyth-Davoren references what appears to be a decision of the Māori Land Court dated 10 September 2018, apparently refusing to admit Mr Smyth-Davoren’s claims with respect to Māori land. Mr Smyth-Davoren declares his opposition to the authority of the Judge of that Court, as well as the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court itself. He wishes his claim to instead be heard by the High Court in Wellington, stating this Court is:

… a Court of General Jurisdiction, recognising the principle of Stare Decisis, and term in law Case of First Impression, Rule according to (a) higher law …

[5]    Mr Smyth-Davoren is concerned that he is being denied certain rights and interests. He outlines his whakapapa. He contends that many of his deceased relatives in that whakapapa had shares in Māori land, which are still held in their names and of which he is the rightful heir. He has, apparently, sought details of certain intestate property, and requests it be transferred to him. According to Mr Smyth-Davoren, no details have been forthcoming.

[6]    The statement of claim requests a Court of Appeal judgment and court order, duly sealed and in Mr Smyth-Daverson’s full legal name, granting him all titles and rights in terms of his claim to his inheritance as applied for in the Māori Land Court. It also requests all legal documentation in relation to his claim be supplied to him, and that the defendants be advised of and adhere to the correct filing of Mr Smyth- Davoren’s titles.

1      Smyth-Davoren v Parker [2018] NZHC 3034.

[7]    Under the heading “Cause(s) of Action”, Mr Smyth-Davoren repeats much of the background described above, and appears to request of the High Court what he has requested of the Court of Appeal. He confirms he is a New Zealand citizen by citing numbers of his birth certificate and passport, and outlines additional whakapapa through which he claims to be a relation of Queen Elizabeth II and a descendant of King Edward I.

[8]    Finally, under the heading “Application for Relief”, Mr Smyth-Davoren asks the Court to inter alia:

… grant me legal documentation, with Court Seal, Judge’s signature, my full legal name, and my identity. … I ask with pertinent facts be put into state here legal documentation as my Personal Property Law property rights, and term in law Case of First Impression rights, and my Private Law rights and in recognition of my Civil Law rights. Declaring I have claimed my [Māori] legal rights and authority. Declaring I have also claimed my rights in accordance with New Zealand or British Crown Constitutional Monarchy, and New Zealand or British Crown Parliamentary Sovereignty.

[9]    He further requests the Māori Land Court be notified of the court order, and to require the shares his deceased relatives had in Māori land be transferred to him.

Assessment

[10]   Under r 5.35B, a judge may make certain orders if satisfied a proceeding is “plainly an abuse of the process of the court”.

[11]   I am satisfied the statement of claim is plainly such an abuse. Mr Smyth- Davoren is concerned that he is entitled to inherit certain interests and rights in Māori land. However, in order for such a concern to be accepted as a claim and its merits determined in Court with the appropriate contradictor, a properly detailed statement of claim setting out a legal cause of action against relevant defendants is required. The present statement of claim does not set out an intelligible legal cause of action, nor does it name relevant defendants. I consider this a case where “right-thinking people would regard this Court as exercising very poor control of its processes” if the statement of claim were to be accepted.2

2      Mathiesen v Slevin [2018] NZHC 1032 at [6]; and see Reid v New Zealand Trotting Conference

[1984] 1 NZLR 8 at 9.

[12]   Upon a finding of an abuse of process the Court may make any order to ensure the proceeding is disposed of.3 The statement of claim is not capable of amendment sufficient to particularise valid claims against the named defendants. The appropriate course of action in this instance is to strike out the proceeding.

Result

[13]   The proceeding with the Registry number CIV-2018-485-904 is struck out under r 5.35B. Mr Smyth-Davoren has a right of appeal against this decision.4

Dobson J

Copy to:

Mr Smyth-Davoren

3      High Court Rules 2016, r 5.35B(2).

4      Rule 5.35B(3).