Smyth-Davoren v Parker - [2018] NZHC 3034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV 2018-485-873

CIV 2018-485-874

[2018] NZHC 3034

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 the papers

Judgment:

22 November 2018

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

Introduction

[1] Mr Smyth-Davoren presented for filing in the Wellington registry two proceedings each against the above-named defendants. They have been given the above-shown registry numbers: CIV 2018-485-873 and CIV 2018-485-874. I will refer to these as the 873 proceeding and the 874 proceeding respectively. The proceedings were referred to me by the Registrar under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016.

SMYTH-DAVOREN v DAVID PARKER [2018] NZHC 3034 [22 November 2018]

The proceedings

[2] Each proceeding purports to be filed under 45 pieces of legislation.1 This legislation is listed on the front of each proceeding. They cover a broad spectrum. For example, they include the Act of Settlement 1701, The Glorious Revolution 1688, the Bill of Rights Act 1689, the Legislative Council Abolition Act 1950, the Social Security Act 1964, the Crimes Act 1961, the Resource Management Act 1991, the Mental Health Act 1992, the Passports Act 1992, the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, the Employment Relations Act 2000, the Public Trust Act 2001, the Senior Courts Act 2016 and the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016.

[3] The 873 proceeding states, amongst other things, that it concerns Mr Smyth- Davoren’s titles and rights and that “I do not and have never felt like I have any titles, rights and laws protecting me at all”. It describes some instances where mail was allegedly stolen and an incident(s) involving his neighbour when the police were called. It expresses concern about society and institutions or bodies within it and says “I am a ‘person’, ‘freeman’ I have no acknowledgment, no documentation of legitimacies that I legally am accepted to be the titles ‘person’ and ‘freeman’”.

[4] Under the heading “cause(s) of action” there are two paragraphs. The first paragraph explains, amongst other things, that the contents stated are the causes of action and Mr Smyth-Davoren has no other options. The second paragraph is in general terms a claim about Mr Smyth-Davoren’s rights and again refers to him being a “person” and a “freeman” as well as being “sovereign flesh and blood man”. It says that he has “never been given rights and titles in a Court sealed and Judge’s signature documentation (and this documentation with my full legal name and identity)”.

[5]Under the heading “Application for Relief” the pleading is:

On the above basis the plaintiff seeks the following relief or remedy:

1. [I] Proposed Plaintiff please remove from my titles “person” and “freeman” and my body, the inappropriate obligations and what I term as slave threats, and or possible servitude availability servant threats. (slave threats, and servant threats for worthless poor businesses and companies,

1 The…

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 3034
Decision Date: 22 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Smyth-Davoren v Parker, the plaintiff, Dwayne Russell Warakihi Maaka Smyth-Davoren, filed two proceedings against several defendants in the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry. Each proceeding was assigned a registry number: CIV 2018-485-873 and CIV 2018-485-874. The defendants included David Parker, Jacinda Ardern, Andrew Little, Patsy Reddy, and Vicki McCall. The proceedings were referred to the court under rule 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016.

The court had to determine whether the proceedings were an abuse of the court's process and whether they could be struck out. The plaintiff's claims involved various pieces of legislation, but the court found that the proceedings did not set out a valid legal cause of action. Moreover, the claims were not appropriately directed against the named defendants. The court concluded that the proceedings were not capable of being amended to turn the plaintiff's concerns into valid claims that could be pursued through the High Court.

In its judgment, the court struck out both proceedings, finding them to be an abuse of the court's process. The plaintiff had the right to appeal the decision. The court determined that none of the defendants should be required to file a defence to claims that were not legally available against them. Allowing the proceedings to continue would have required the defendants to respond through the court processes, which would have been an inefficient use of the court's resources.

Orders