Williams v Attorney-General

[2015] NZHC 3122

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CIV-2015-463-000038 [2015] NZHC 3122

BETWEEN

RODNEY KEVIN WILLIAMS

Applicant

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent

CIV-2015-463-000039

BETWEEN  RONALD KEVIN WILLIAMS Plaintiff

ANDSUSAN DAPHNE GREEN Defendant

CIV-2015-463-000040

BETWEEN  RONALD KEVIN WILLIAMS Plaintiff

ANDJAMES KEITH ARMSTRONG, GHISLAINE-EVA TANGNEY AND MARK TANGNEY

Defendants

Hearing:	8 December 2015
Appearances:	Plaintiff in person C H Macklin for Attorney-General
Judgment:	8 December 2015

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GILBERT J

Solicitors/Party:

Gordon Pilditch, Rotorua

Copy to: Plaintiff

WILLIAMS v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] NZHC 3122 [8 December 2015]

Introduction

[1]      Mr Williams applies for an order reversing two judgments of Christiansen AJ striking out his claims relating to events that occurred in 1999 and 2000.   These judgments were delivered on 7 July 20111  and 16 July 2013.2  The application is misconceived, in part because Mr Williams has already unsuccessfully applied to review these judgments out of time.  Christiansen AJ dismissed that application on

13  February  2015.3      It  appears  that,  despite  what  is  said  in  the  body  of  his

application, Mr Williams is really seeking leave to review this later judgment, issued on 13 February 2015, out of time.

Background

[2]      Following a formal proof hearing on 2 September 1999 in the Blenheim District Court, Judge Keane entered judgment  against Mr Williams in favour of Michael Meads in the sum of $13,516.99.    Mr Meads applied for a distress warrant and this was executed by a bailiff on 2 May 2000.  A number of items were seized from Mr Williams in accordance with the distress warrant.

[3]      Mr  Williams  applied  to  set  aside  Judge  Keane’s  judgment.    This  was dismissed  by  Judge  Willy  on  2  August  2000.     Costs  were  awarded  against Mr Williams on this application.

[4]      A further distress warrant was issued in September 2000 and further property was seized.

[5]     In 2001, Mr Williams commenced proceedings in this Court claiming compensation for items seized pursuant to the distress warrants.  This claim did not progress after Master Lang ordered Mr Williams to pay $10,000 as security for costs on 17 February 2003.

[6]      On 10 March 2003, Mr Williams filed a claim in the Disputes Tribunal which was materially the same claim that he had brought in this Court.  On 23 May 2003,

1      Williams v Attorney-General HC Rotorua CIV-2010-463-634, 7 July 2011.

2      Williams v Green HC Rotorua CIV-2010-463-635, 16 July 2013.

3      Williams v Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 139.

Mr Williams discontinued his claim in this Court.  On 10 September 2003, the claim in the Disputes Tribunal was struck out at his request.

[7]      That should have been the end of the matter.   However, some seven years later,  Mr Williams issued  fresh  proceedings  in  this Court  again  challenging the seizure of his property under the distress warrants.  He alleged contempt against the Registrar of the District Court of Whakatane in relation to the first of the distress warrants.  He alleged dishonesty and bias against one of the bailiffs and extortion by the Department of Courts for charging a $70 fee for releasing his property.

[8]      These claims were struck out by Christiansen AJ on 7 July 2011 on the following bases:

(a)       Some claims were in direct conflict with documentary evidence. (b)  Many claims appeared to be incapable of proof.

(c)       The statement of claim was unintelligible. (d)  The claims had no merit.

(e)       The claims were barred by the Limitation Act 1950 and the Crown

Proceedings Act 1950.

[9]      On  24  November  2014,  more  than  three  years  after  the  judgment  was delivered, Mr Williams applied to review this judgment.  Christiansen AJ declined leave to review the judgment out of time.  This judgment was delivered at a hearing on 11 February 2015 and reasons for the judgment were delivered on 13 February

2015.  Leave was declined because:

(a)       of the length of the delay in seeking review;

(b)      of the lack of any credible explanation for the delay;

(c)       of the lack of sufficient reasons to support the application;

(d)of the likely prejudice that would be suffered if leave to review was granted; and

(e)       the application was an abuse of process.

[10]     This judgment prompted Mr Williams’ present application which he initially

filed on 2 March 2015 but never served.

Decision

[11]     The application must be dismissed for the reasons that follow.

[12]     The application seeks review of the judgments delivered on 7 July 2011 and

16 July 2013.   That application has already been declined in the judgment of Christiansen AJ delivered on 13 February 2015.  Mr Williams cannot ignore that fact and bring a fresh application in the same terms.

[13]     Even  if,  contrary to  its  terms,  the  present  application  was  treated  as  an application  to  review  the  judgment  on  13  February 2015,  it  would  have  to  be dismissed.  Any such application would have to have been filed and served within five working days of the date the judgment was delivered.   That did not happen. Mr Williams did not file his application until 2 March 2015 and he has not served it at any stage.  Mr Williams has offered no explanation for this failure.

[14]     More significantly, the underlying claims are untenable and cannot possibly succeed.  Mr Williams has not demonstrated that he has a tenable claim arising out of the events that occurred in 1999 and 2000.  Even if there had been tenable claims, which is most unlikely, they were statute barred prior to Mr Williams’ attempt to resurrect these claims 10 years later, in 2010.   The claim against the Attorney- General is also precluded by the Crown Proceedings Act.

Result

[15]     The application is dismissed.

[16]     The Attorney-General  is  entitled  to  an  award of costs  on  a 2B basis  as

claimed.

M A Gilbert J