Vernooij v Gallaghan - [2024] NZHC 1974

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2024-409-316

[2024] NZHC 1974

BETWEEN JOHANNES JACOBUS ANTONIUS VERNOOIJ
Plaintiff

AND

JUDGE M J GALLAGHAN

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person

Judgment:

17 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

VERNOOIJ v GALLAGHAN [2024] NZHC 1974 [17 July 2024]

Introduction

[1] Johannes Jacobus Antonius Vernooij has filed proceedings against a sitting District Court Judge. Although the proceedings refer to Judge M J Gallaghan, I will treat the proceeding as intended to be brought against Judge M J Callaghan. The Registrar has referred the proceeding to me under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016. That rule provides:

5.35A Registrar may refer plainly abusive proceeding to Judge before service

(1)This rule applies if a Registrar believes that, on the face of a proceeding tendered for filing, the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the court.

(2)The Registrar must accept the proceeding for filing if it meets the formal requirements for documents set out in rules 5.3 to 5.16.

(3)However, the Registrar may,—

(a)as soon as practicable after accepting the proceeding for filing, refer it to a Judge for consideration under rule 5.35B; and

(b)until a Judge has considered the proceeding under that rule, decline to sign and release the notice of proceeding and attached memorandum for the plaintiff or the applicant (as appropriate) to serve the proceeding.

[2] Following referral under r 5.35A, if I am satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of process of the Court, an order under r 5.35B(2) may be made. That rule relevantly provides:

5.35B Judge’s powers to make orders and give directions before service

…

(2)The Judge may, on his or her own initiative, make an order or give directions to ensure that the proceeding is disposed of or, as the case may be, proceeds in a way that complies with these rules, including (without limitation) an order under rule 15.1 that—

(a)the proceeding be struck out:

(b)the proceeding be stayed until further order:

(c)documents for service be kept by the court and not be served until the stay is lifted:

(d)no application to lift the stay be heard until the person who filed the proceeding files further documents as specified in the order (for example, an amended statement of claim or particulars of claim).

[3] As confirmed in Mathiesen v Slevin, in deciding whether to strike out a proceeding under r 5.35B, the Court must determine two questions:1

(a)whether it would be manifestly unfair to the defendant 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 plaintiff’s document to be regarded as a proper document.

[4] In O’Neill v Judicial Conduct Commissioner, the Court of Appeal…

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 Vernooij v Gallaghan

Details

AGLC: Vernooij v Gallaghan [2024] NZHC 1974
Case: [2024] NZHC 1974
Decision Date: 17 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Johannes Jacobus Antonius Vernooij filed proceedings against Judge M J Callaghan, a sitting District Court Judge, in the High Court of New Zealand. The plaintiff's case was referred to the court under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016 due to concerns that the proceeding was an abuse of the court process. The plaintiff's statement of claim was difficult to follow, but it appeared to challenge a decision made by the defendant in proceedings related to the enforcement of a matrimonial property agreement signed by the plaintiff in 2008. The plaintiff sought a wide range of remedies, including compensation, revocation of bankruptcy, and a dismissal of a criminal conviction.

The court had to decide whether the proceeding was an abuse of process warranting dismissal and whether the plaintiff's claims against the defendant were valid despite the defendant's judicial immunity. The court considered the principle of judicial immunity, which protects sitting judges from civil suits for acts performed in their official capacity. The plaintiff's primary complaint was against a judicial decision, for which the proper remedy was an appeal, not a civil suit. Additionally, the court found that the proceeding did not identify any tenable cause of action against the defendant.

The court concluded that the proceeding was an abuse of process and an abuse of the court's resources. The plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the outcome of a judicial decision did not provide grounds for an action against the judge. The court exercised its power under r 5.35B(2)(a) to strike out the proceeding, noting that the powers under this rule should be exercised sparingly but were warranted in this case. The court directed the Registrar to provide a copy of the decision to the defendant and noted that the plaintiff had the right to appeal the decision.

Orders