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…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Smyth-Davoren v Parker and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NZHC 3135
Decision Date: 30 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Smyth-Davoren v Parker, the plaintiff, Dwayne Russell Warakihi Maaka Smyth-Davoren, sought to bring a claim against several defendants, including David Parker, Jacinda Ardern, Andrew Little, Patsy Reddy, and Vicki McCall, in the High Court of New Zealand. Smyth-Davoren's claim pertained to his belief that he was the rightful heir to certain shares in Māori land held by his deceased relatives. The Māori Land Court had previously dismissed his claims, and Smyth-Davoren sought to have his case heard by the High Court instead. The defendants moved to have the proceeding struck out as an abuse of process.

The legal issues in the case were whether Smyth-Davoren's statement of claim presented a valid cause of action and whether the named defendants were relevant to the claims being made. The court had to determine if the proceeding was an abuse of process under the High Court Rules, warranting the striking out of the case. The central issue was whether the plaintiff had presented a coherent and legally sound claim against the defendants, or if the proceeding was being used in bad faith to harass or delay the defendants.

The court found that Smyth-Davoren's statement of claim did not present an intelligible legal cause of action, nor did it name relevant defendants. The court concluded that the proceeding was plainly an abuse of the process of the court, as right-thinking people would regard the court as exercising poor control of its processes if the statement of claim were to be accepted. The court struck out the proceeding under rule 5.35B of the High Court Rules, finding that the statement of claim was not capable of amendment to particularise valid claims against the named defendants.

The court's final orders were that the proceeding with the Registry number CIV-2018-485-904 be struck out under rule 5.35B. Smyth-Davoren had the right to appeal this decision. The court's reasoning was based on the need to ensure the proper use of court processes and to prevent abuse, as well as the lack of a valid cause of action and relevant defendants in the statement of claim.

Orders