Smyth-Davoren v Sepulon - [2019] NZHC 2138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2019-485-510

[2019] NZHC 2138

BETWEEN
DWAYNE RUSSELL WARAKIHI MAAKA SMYTH-DAVOREN

Plaintiff

AND

CARMEL SEPULON, MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

First Defendant

PHIL TWYFORD, MINISTER OF HOUSING

Second Defendant

CHRIS HIPKINS, MINISTER OF

EDUCATION and MINISTER OF STATE SERVICES

Third Defendant

DAVID PARKER, ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Fourth Defendant

CIV-2019-485-511

BETWEEN

DWAYNE RUSSELL WARAKIHI MAAKA SMYTH-DAVOREN

Plaintiff

AND

WILSON ISAAC, CHAIRPERSON OF THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

Defendant

CIV-2019-485-512

BETWEEN

DWAYNE RUSSELL WARAKIHI MAAKA SMYTH-DAVOREN

Plaintiff

SMYTH-DAVOREN v VARIOUS PARTIES [2019] NZHC 2138 [29 August 2019]

AND
WILSON ISAAC, CHIEF JUDGE OF THE MAORI LAND COURT

Defendant

CIV-2019-485-513

BETWEEN

DWAYNE RUSSELL WARAKIHI MAAKA SMYTH-DAVOREN

Plaintiff

AND

ELIZABETH PARKES, DIRECTOR OF NEW ZEALAND GENEALOGY LTD

Defendant

On the papers:

Judgment:

29 August 2019

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[1] As of 1 November 2017, the High Court Rules 2016 (HCR) were amended by the insertion of r 5.35A. This rule permits the Registrar to refer proceedings to a Judge if the Registrar believes that, on the face of a proceeding which has been tendered for filing, the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court.

[2] Where a Judge to whom proceedings are referred is satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court, the Judge has various options available including staying the proceedings until further order of the Court or ordering that the proceedings struck out.

[3] The plaintiff has filed four sets of proceedings in the High Court at Wellington.1 These four sets of proceedings have been referred to me by the Registrar pursuant to r 5.35A. I am therefore required to determine whether all or any of these proceedings are plainly an abuse of the process of the Court.

1 CIV-2019-485-510 on 22 August 2019; CIV-2019-485-511, CIV-2019-485-512, and CIV-2019-
485-513 on 26 August 2019.

Background

[4] This is not the first time the plaintiff has filed proceedings in the High Court which have been referred by the Registrar to a Judge pursuant to r 5.35A.

[5] On at least three previous occasions, the plaintiff has had proceedings struck out pursuant to r 5.35B.2 The last of the proceedings was struck out as recently as 11 July 2019.

[6] I will now analyse each of the four sets of proceedings to see if they fall within the category of being plainly an abuse of the process of the Court.

CIV-2019-485-510

[7] The cover sheet of the statement of claim filed in this matter describes a proceeding as an “application for judicial review”.

[8] An essential component of a claim for judicial review is that it identifies a statutory power of decision which has been made and which affects the person applying for a judicial review. No such decision is identified in this proceeding.

[9] The relief sought by the applicant in these proceedings include a direction that he is entitled to “at least $500 per week”, “a studio [I] can live…

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 Smyth-Davoren v Sepulon

Details

AGLC: Smyth-Davoren v Sepulon [2019] NZHC 2138
Case: [2019] NZHC 2138
Decision Date: 29 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Dwayne Russell Warakihi Maaka Smyth-Davoren, filed four sets of proceedings in the High Court of New Zealand. The defendants include various government officials and a private individual. The plaintiff sought various orders, including monetary relief, housing, and theological education. The High Court was required to determine whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of process. The court found that the proceedings were incoherent, lacked a legal basis, and were filed with the intention of wasting the court's time. The court struck out the proceedings as an abuse of process.

The court examined each set of proceedings individually. In the first set of proceedings (CIV-2019-485-510), the plaintiff did not identify any statutory power of decision that affected him, and the relief sought was not explained. The second set of proceedings (CIV-2019-485-511) listed the Chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal as the defendant, but there was no connection between the claim and any action or decision of the tribunal. The third set of proceedings (CIV-2019-485-512) named the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court as the defendant, but there was no legal basis for doing so. The fourth set of proceedings (CIV-2019-485-513) named a professional genealogist as the defendant, but the plaintiff did not explain the legal justification for the orders sought.

The court found that each of the four sets of proceedings was incoherent and constituted an abuse of process. The plaintiff's status as a mental health patient may have contributed to the filing of these incomprehensible statements of claim, but the court could not continue to indulge the plaintiff. The court warned that if the plaintiff persisted in filing such documentation, he risked having an order made against him under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 restraining him from commencing civil proceedings. The court advised the plaintiff that he had a right of appeal against the decision.

Orders