Tafua-Nicholl v Crown, Ministry of Justice

[2025] NZHC 548

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2025-485-156

[2025] NZHC 548

BETWEEN

EDWARD TAFUA-NICHOLL

Plaintiff

AND

THE CROWN, MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

Defendant

Hearing:	On the Papers
Counsel:	Plaintiff in Person
Judgment:	18 March 2025
Reissued:	19 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1]                 Edward Tafua-Nicholl has filed a statement of claim in which he makes an application for judicial review. He names the Crown and Ministry of Justice as the defendant. Mr Tafua-Nicholl has also filed a memorandum in support.

[2]                 The Registrar has referred the documents  to  me  under  r 5.35A  of  the  High Court Rules 2016 (the Rules) on the basis that they believe, on its face, the statement of claim is plainly an abuse of process of the Court.

Relevant law

[3]                 If I consider that the statement of claim does amount to such an abuse of process, under r 5.35B of the Rules, I may make orders or give directions to ensure the proceeding is disposed of or proceeds in a manner that complies with the Rules, including striking out or staying the proceeding under r 15.1.

TAFUA-NICHOLL v THE CROWN, MINISTRY OF JUSTICE [2025] NZHC 548 [18 March 2025]

[4]                 When deciding whether to strike out a proceeding under r 5.35B of the Rules, the Court must determine:1

(a)whether it would be manifestly unfair to the defendants that they be required to respond; and

(b)whether right thinking people would regard this Court as exercising very poor control of its processes if it were to allow the document to be regarded as a proper document, or if it were to allow the proceeding to proceed further.2

[5]                 The power under r 5.35B must be exercised sparingly, and only in the clearest of cases, given that the rule contemplates a litigant being denied the fundamental right of access to the courts, with the possibility of the proceeding being halted before it is even served.3

[6]                 When considering the application of r 5.35B, the Court make take into account the broad public interest and the private interests of individuals who may otherwise be drawn into entirely unmeritorious proceedings. That must be weighed against the right of a litigant to bring proceedings.4

The statement of claim

[7]In his statement of claim, Mr Tafua-Nicholl states:

1.     I, Edward Tafuanicholl, am applying for a JUDGEALONE- JUDICIALREVIEW in the hope of quashing the remainder of my MOJrecord on the basis of the precedents gained - overtime by lawyers that highlighted a misinterpretation of the Protectionorder-system to superceed parent-orders unjustly. I hope to clear my family-name in the community; and gain employment instantly as an outcome.

The remaining convictions are from 2020 - judgement against me simply because [my former partner] testified ‘she couldn’t remember our relationship that year’, and

1      Mathiesen v Slevin [2018] NZHC 1032, (2018) 25 PRNZ 116 at [6] citing Mathiesen v Fildes

[2017] NZHC 2258 at [4].

2      O’Neill v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2023] NZCA 152 at [30].

3      Te Wakaminenga o Nga Hapu ki Waitangi v Waitangi National Trust Board [2023] NZCA 63 at [15].

4      Jones v New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Ltd [2021] NZHC 3220 at [20].

2022 - judgement not aware [my former partner] was using a protection order as a tool for noncompliance.

2.     In 2020; [my former partner] obtained a protection order on the basis of unresearched-testimony. Consequently: in 2022 BNicholls won precedenceHuttDC; in 2024 Bshade won same precedenceHCC. Since 2024; [my former partner] has relocated to my neighbors’ house w/o kids

- according to her motherinlaw.

[8]                 Mr Tafua-Nicholl’s memorandum reiterates that Mr Tafua-Nicholl wishes to quash his “MOJ record”. He asserts a miscarriage of justice through irregularities undermining the authority of parental orders. Mr Tafua-Nicholl refers to evidence given by his former partner saying that she could not remember their relationship in 2020 and seems to assert that a Family Court Judge found her in contempt of court. The memorandum refers to other matters, but it is difficult to understand exactly what Mr Tafua-Nicholl is saying. He concludes the memorandum by commenting that his former partner’s lawyer is presently facing some (presumably disciplinary) process before the New Zealand Law Society.

[9]                 The memorandum has four exhibits. The first is a memorandum from counsel for Mr Tafua-Nicholl, likely filed in a Family Court proceeding, recording that from Mr Tafua-Nicholl’s point of view,  the arrangements for the children are not satisfactory and referring to a long history of non-compliance with parenting orders by his former partner. The second exhibit is a largely illegible copy of a memorandum signed by his former partner. As best I can ascertain, it was provided to a court in a civil proceeding and relates to a request to be excused from appearing in that matter. The third exhibit is a notice of result of appeal recording that an appeal against conviction for breaching a protection order has been set aside and a judgment of acquittal entered.5 The fourth exhibit is an email from a professional standards officer at the New Zealand Law Society to Mr Tafua-Nicholl confirming receipt of information in relation to a complaint made by him (although the nature of the complaint is unspecified).

5      The notice of result of appeal relates to Tafua-Nicholl v Police [2024] NZHC 2450.

Discussion

[10]              The essential problem with the statement of claim is that Mr Tafua-Nicholl is attempting to quash criminal convictions for breach of protection orders by way of an application for judicial review. This is not possible. It is not apparent from the material filed whether Mr Tafua-Nicholl pursued an appeal in relation to the convictions entered against him (other than the one matter mentioned earlier). Nonetheless, filing an appeal would have been the appropriate course to follow if he wished to challenge the convictions. And, to the extent that there are ongoing issues in relation to the care of children (including as to parenting orders), these are appropriately addressed in the Family Court.

[11]              Accordingly, I conclude that the statement of claim discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action and is an abuse of process of the Court such that it must be struck out.

Result

[12]I direct that this proceeding be struck out.

[13]              I record that Mr Tafua-Nicholl has a right to appeal this decision in accordance with r 5.35B(3).

[14]              I direct the Registrar to provide a copy of this decision to Crown Law in accordance with r 5.35B(4).

McQueen J