VIN TOMAR AND THE FAMILY COURT IN MORRINSVILLE/HAMILTON

[2023] NZHC 1694

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2023-419-000168

[2023] NZHC 1694

BETWEEN

VIN TOMAR

Applicant

AND

THE FAMILY COURT IN MORRINSVILLE/HAMILTON

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	3 July 2023

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J REVIEW OF REGISTRAR’S DECISION

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 July 2023 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Copy to:            V Tomar, Auckland

TOMAR v THE FAMILY COURT IN MORRINSVILLE/HAMILTON [2023] NZHC 1694 [3 July 2023]

[1]                 Vin Tomar seeks to judicially review the decision of Deputy Registrar Te Ao Marama Geraghty to decline to accept a statement of claim for judicial review dated 20 June lodged by Mr Tomar for filing. The application for judicial review is brought under r 2.11, High Court Rules 2016.

[2]                 In declining to accept the document for filing the Registrar relied on a decision of Downs J delivered on 18 November 2021.1 In that decision Downs J exercised the inherent jurisdiction of the Court and made the following orders:

[63]Mr Tomar is prohibited from:

(a)Continuing all existing litigation in the High Court;

(b)Bringing new proceedings in this Court in which Ms Khatri is a party or the proceeding is about or in any way related to Ms Khatri;

(c)Filing applications of any sort in relation to (a) or (b);

Unless he first pays Ms Khatri, in full, $98,998.15 in outstanding costs.

[3]                 In support of his application for review Mr Tomar refers to two sets of proceedings concerning “the parties involved in Justice Downs’s ruling”. Mr Tomar suggests that the current rejection of his document is therefore biased and inconsistent and seeks permission to commence the proceedings.

[4]                 The proceeding Mr Tomar refers to in the High Court, Auckland Registry, CIV-2022-404-1383 involves bankruptcy proceedings brought against Mr Tomar. Clearly those proceedings are not subject to the order of Downs J.

[5]                 The second proceeding brought in the High Court, Hamilton Registry, CIV- 2022-419-63 initially involved a claim against the lawyer for child. Those proceedings were ultimately struck out by a decision of Moore J delivered on 27 April 2023.2

1      Khatri v Tomar [2021] NZHC 3091.

2      Tomar v The Family Court in Hamilton & Anor [2023] NZHC 950.

[6]                 I note in the course of those proceedings Harvey J issued a minute on 3 March 2023 in which he stated:3

“[8]   Having  carefully  reviewed  the  papers  that  have  been  filed  by    Mr Tomar, the submissions of counsel, and the various minutes and decisions on the file, I consider that the strike out application should proceed on 17 April 2023 as scheduled. As Goddard J foreshadowed in his minute, by analogy, the present applications in this Court appear at first blush to be an attempt to circumvent Downs J’s previous order. It will be remembered that, with the appeal against that decision being deemed abandoned, Downs J’s decision remains intact. Mr Tomar has not provided any evidence that he has paid the outstanding costs order.

[9] To avoid doubt, there is nothing in Mr Tomar’s materials before the  Court filed by Mr Tomar to justify anything other than the continuation of the strike out hearing …”

[7]                 Similarly, the present application for judicial review, although stated to be against the Family Court, clearly seeks to challenge the validity of the orders made in proceedings involving Ms Khatri. The orders were made in favour of Ms Khatri. He also seeks to argue there was no valid appointment of counsel for the child. The relief sought is the quashing of all judgments made by the Family Court. The proposed proceedings clearly affect Ms Khatri and she would be entitled to be heard.

[8]                 The proposed statement of claim dated 20 June 2023 is a blatant attempt by Mr Tomar to revisit earlier judicial rulings and decisions. As Mr Tomar has failed to comply with the pre-condition that Downs J applied for such proceedings, namely payment in full of the $98,998.15 in costs, the Registrar was correct to refuse to accept the documents for filing. If the documents had been accepted for filing they would have been in breach of Downs J’s order. The Registrar was obliged not to accept them.

[9]The application for review of the Registrar’s decision is dismissed.

Venning J

3 At [14].