WEDGWOOD v R [2020] NZHC 278

WEDGWOOD v R [2020] NZHC 278 [26 February 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDCHRISTCHURCH REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTAUTAHI ROHECIV-2020-409-000079[2020] NZHC 278BETWEEN ASTON EDWARD WILLIAM ERNESTWEDGWOODApplicantAND THE QUEENRespondentHearing: Determined on the papersRepresentation: A E W E Wedgwood (Applicant) in personJudgment: 26 February 2020JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE JThis judgment was delivered by me on 26 February 2020 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:Introduction[1] Aston Edward William Ernest Wedgwood has tendered for filing a form ofapplication and a supporting affidavit.[2] The application is expressly entitled:Interlocutory emergency application for ordering the Crown to give medicallyendorsed prescriptions of medical necessaries of life – palliative per absoluteduties under International Convention on Political and Civil Rights andDisability Convention WITHOUT NOTICE.The previous documents[3] Mr Wedgwood had a week earlier tendered for filing a document with a similarheading, but naming as respondent "Et al Megan Woods".("the previous documents).[4] The Registrar referred the previous documents to Wylie J pursuant to r 5.35AHigh Court Rules.[5] Wylie J considered the previous documents by reference to r 5.35B and theinherent jurisdiction and struck out the matter. The Court's Minute of 17 February2020 appears as Schedule A to this judgment.Documents now filed[6] The documents filed by Mr Wedgwood are defective in form and objectionablein substance.[7] In form the application is filed as if it is an interlocutory application, yet thereis no substantive proceeding before the Court. The only document seeking relief isthat in which the heading begins "interlocutory emergency application" which appearsintended to be treated as an application (without notice) for an interim mandatoryinjunction (for instance, "ordering the Crown to give medically endorsed prescriptions").[8] As a result, there is nothing in the form of application filed which identifies thelegal cause or causes of action relied upon. It is accordingly unclear whetherMr Wedgwood is intending to sue the Crown for breach of a duty owed to him(whether it common law or otherwise) or is intending to make an application forjudicial review. In the latter case the person or persons whose act or omission is theintended subject matter of the application would need to be named as respondents.[9] Against that background I have reviewed the 86 paragraph affidavit filed byMr Wedgwood, together with the 26 exhibits. The affidavit is so discursive as to beincapable of comprehension. There are repeated references to assaults or wrongscommitted by unnamed persons, Government failures which have resulted in"torturous injuries, rapes, grievous internal assaults and permanent severe injury",ACC never having heeded medical evidence; and "acts of injudicious disregardevidence by Government frequently constantly results in terms of UN conventions,torture claims". These are merely instances of many such generalised, unspecificallegations.[10] In Mathiesen v Fildes, I adopted a two-pronged test for strike-out purposesunder r 5.35B, which asks:1(a) whether it would be manifestly unfair to the respondents that they berequired to respond; and(b) whether right thinking people would regard the Court as exercisingvery poor control of its processes if it were to allow the applicant'sdocument/s to be regarded as proper documents.[11] Mr Wedgwood's proceeding fails at both levels. I am satisfied that it wouldclearly be manifestly unfair to the Crown that it be required to respond to thedocuments filed. Similarly, any right thinking person would regard it as poorjudgement to allow these documents to be treated as proper documents.1 Mathiesen v Fildes [2017] NZHC 2258, (2017) 24 PRNZ 405 at [4], adopting Reid v New ZealandTrotting Conference [1984] 1 NZLR 8, at [9].[12] If Mr Wedgwood has one or more identifiable causes of action against one ormore decision-makers or actor, they should be capable of being clearly identified andpleaded in an appropriate originating document in which the appropriate respondentor respondents are named. Similarly, any application for interim relief may beappropriately filed but needs to be supported by a focused affidavit, referable to thefacts pleaded and the relief sought in the originating documents, and compiled in away which is capable of being directly and coherently replied to by the respondent.[13] In the form the present documents have been filed, the proceeding is plainly anabuse of process.Order[14] I order that this proceeding be struck out.Right of appeal[15] The applicant has the right to appeal this decision.2ADDENDUM:[16] Mr Wedgwood has elected to state on his "Interlocutory EmergencyApplication" that his address for service is "High Court Registrar's Counter". Nothingin the High Court Rules (at r 5.44(1) or elsewhere) precludes Mr Wedgwood fromelecting that as his address for service. I therefore record that any documents in thisproceeding, including this judgment, are effectively served at the time they are placedon that counter, whether or not Mr Wedgwood is in attendance.Osborne JCopy to:Mr A E W E Wedgwood2 HCR 5.35B(3).SCHEDULE A