State Housing Action Incorporated v Minister Responsible for Housing New Zealand Corporation and for Finance

[2016] NZHC 2131

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CIV-2016-470-139 [2016] NZHC 2131

IN THE MATTER

of an application for Review pursuant to

the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

BETWEEN

STATE HOUSING ACTION INCORPORATED

Plaintiff

AND

MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION AND FOR FINANCE Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	MJ Sharp for plaintiff
Judgment:	8 September 2016

JUDGMENT OF FAIRE J

Solicitors:           Toni Brown Law, Tauranga (T Brown)

State Housing Action Incorporated v Minister Responsible for Housing New Zealand Corporation and for

Finance [2016] NZHC 2131 [8 September 2016]

[1]      The  intending  plaintiff  applies  to  review  a  decision  of  Deputy-Registrar

Hewlett given 25 August 2016.

[2]      The review is sought in view of a decision made in reliance on r 2.11(1)(b). Deputy-Registrar Hewlett refused to accept the intending plaintiff ’s documents for filing.

[3]      Rule 2:11(1)(b) provides:

2.11     Review of Registrar's decision

(1)       An affected party to a proceeding or an intended proceeding may apply to a Judge by interlocutory application for a review of any of the following:

…:

(b)      a Registrar's refusal to file a document tendered for filing:

[4]      The intending plaintiff advised that it will make changes to the intitulling, as suggested by the Deputy-Registrar.   I therefore proceed on the basis that the documents will be amended so that the changes to the intitulling as suggested by the Deputy-Registrar are made.  On that basis, no further ruling is required of me on that matter.

[5]      The review is in respect of documents presented for filing on 24 August

2016.

[6]      The review application, together with a statement of claim in a form which apparently is different from that considered by the Deputy-Registrar was filed on

1 September 2016.

[7]      What  is  apparent  is  that  the  statement  of  claim,  which  has  now  been presented to the High Court for filing, is in different form from that which was presented with documents on 24 August 2016. All reference to Accessible Properties has been removed from the document.

[8]      The removal of reference to Accessible Properties is consistent with what the intending plaintiff said, by counsel, would be done.  In particular, paragraph 31 of counsel’s memorandum records:

In order to emphasise that the proceedings are not directed to Accessible Properties themselves, counsel can indicate that the statement of claim is intended  to  be  filed  with  the  amendment  to  delete  the  references  to Accessible Properties in the prayer for relief for each of the two causes.

[9]      The review, in this case, is rendered moot.  No decision has been made by the Deputy-Registrar on the statement of claim which now sits on the Court file and, apparently, awaits a determination as to whether it should be received for filing or not.

[10]     The application for review is accordingly dismissed.  The file is referred to the Registrar to consider formal receipt of the statement of claim and supporting documents as presented.

[11]     The applicant’s application for review sought costs.  Costs are not appropriate having regard to the changes made to the statement of claim and the fact, as I have ruled, the application for review is rendered moot by them.  Accordingly, no order

for costs is made.

JA Faire J