VIDEBECK v THE FAMILY COURT, AUCKLAND REGISTRAR GENERAL [2020] NZHC 345

VIDEBECK v THE FAMILY COURT, AUCKLAND REGISTRAR GENERAL [2020] NZHC 345 [4 March2020]NOTE: ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHERINFORMATION, PLEASE SEEhttps://www.justice.govt.nz/family/about/restriction-on-publishing-judgments/IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2019-404-1796[2020] NZHC 345UNDER The Births, Deaths, Marriages andRelationships Registration Act 1995BETWEEN EVELYN VIDEBECKAppellantAND THE FAMILY COURT, AUCKLANDREGISTRAR GENERALRespondentTHE REGISTRAR GENERAL OFBIRTHS DEATHS & MARRIAGESHearing(teleconference):26 February 2020Appearances: The Appellant in personNo appearance by or on behalf of the Respondents (not served)Judgment: 4 March 2020JUDGMENT OF POWELL J[redacted version]This judgment was delivered by me on 4 March 2020 at 3.30 pm pursuant toR 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:[1] The appellant, Evelyn Videbeck, has appealed a decision of Judge A M Manuelin the Family Court at Auckland. Judge Manuel dismissed proceedings brought byMs Videbeck purportedly under the Births, Death, Marriages and RelationshipsRegistration Act 1995.1 In her Minute Judge Manuel set out the genesis ofMs Videbeck's proceedings, a successful application to change the sex designated ona birth certificate, made to the Family Court at Auckland in 2012, and noted thatfollowing the order Ms Videbeck arranged with the Registrar of Births Deaths &Marriages for the name of Evelyn Jane Videbeck to be recorded on her birthinformation.[2] Ms Videbeck returned to the Family Court in 2015. It appears Ms Videbeckwas having issues with both previous and current names recorded on her birthcertificate. As Judge Manuel noted:2In her documents, Ms Videbeck pointed to the difficulties she asserted hadflowed from these troublesome names. She had been discriminated againstover property and employment matters, dental procedures, accommodation,social interactions and during her dealings with authorities such as the police.She explained in her affidavits and movingly today in Court [a number ofother, very serious, issues]. She has suffered significant breaches of privacyand confidentiality. She raised complaints against Mr Harrison but given hisdemise she accepts that she cannot continue with the complaints. She wasprepared to rather graciously characterise them as probably caused by amisunderstanding.The remedies which Ms Videbeck is seeking (or is possibly seeking) from theCourt have been identified by Ms Halford as follows:(a) Monetary compensation by way of damages from the FamilyCourt.(b) An order wiping her police records from 2013.(c) A direction for all other Court files to be destroyed and toprevent anyone accessing them.(d) The reinstatement of her driver's and real estate licences(possibly).(e) A Master Builders' certification for a house which she builtsome years back (possibly).1 Videbeck v Registrar-General, Births Deaths & Marriages: Minute of Judge A M Manuel,12 June 2019.2 At [16] – [17].[3] Notwithstanding the identification of these issues, Judge Manuel went on toconclude:3As a Judge of this Court my powers are limited to those conferred on me bythe law. There are many wrongs I wish I could remedy but it is not within mypower to do so. The remedies which Ms Videbeck seeks are outside thepowers conferred on me as a District Court Judge.Obviously, one of the remedies she seeks (a change of the names which havebeen so inauspicious for her) could be achieved by lodging a deed poll withthe Registrar General of Births, Death and Marriages.There is no jurisdiction to found Ms Videbeck's causes of action insofar as Ican identify them.I acknowledge and accept that a name is a critical part of one's identity. Itshapes who we are, how we feel about ourselves and, to some extent, how theworld treats us, but I am unable to provide Ms Videbeck with the remedies sheis seeking. Her proceedings are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.The appeal[4] Ms Videbeck has appealed on the basis Judge Manuel's decision was wrong infact and law, but no particulars have been provided as to what the factual or legal errorsmight be.[5] There are in any event fundamental procedural issues with the appeal.(a) First, it appears that the appeal was filed out of time. Ms Videbeck'sappeal appears to have been brought pursuant to s 16 of the FamilyCourt Act 1980 and as a result the time requirements for appeals asspecified in the High Court Rules 2016 are applicable. Specifically,r 20.4(2)(b) provides that the appeal must be filed within 20 workingdays after the decision appealed against is given. Judge Manuel'sdecision was given on 12 June 2019 and the notice of appeal wasreceived by the Registry on 12 July 2019, which is two days out of time.(b) In addition, even though the appeal was filed on 12 July 2019 an appealis not brought until it has been served on all parties.4 As Ms Videbeck3 At [18] – [21].4 High Court Rules 2016, r 20.6(1)(c).has confirmed the appeal has not been served on any party. As a result,and leaving aside the late filing date, the appeal has therefore not yetbeen brought within the time prescribed in r 20.4(2(b)).[6] As I discussed with Ms Videbeck, although an extension of time can be grantedpursuant to r 20.4(3) and (4) of the High Court Rules such an extension is at thediscretion of the Court. In deciding whether to grant an extension the Court is requiredto take into account the length of the delay and the reasons for it, the extent of anyprejudice caused by the delay and the prospective merits of the appeal and whether theappeal raises any issue of public importance.5[7] I therefore adjourned the telephone conference on two occasions to enableMs Videbeck to consider these issues and/or instruct a lawyer and indeed to considerwhat Judge Manuel had said in her judgment. While Ms Videbeck provided a detailedmemorandum to the Court following the previous telephone conference whichprovided some further background detail, this did not address the procedural issues,nor indeed did it shed any further light on the substantive merits of the appeal.Discussion[8] Having considered the materials filed by Ms Videbeck carefully, it is clear thatnot only has the appeal been brought out of time but like Judge Manuel I am unableto see any basis upon which the appeal could succeed were it to go to hearing.Although the Court is sympathetic to Ms Videbeck's claims, there simply does notappear to be any jurisdiction to achieve any of the outcomes Ms Videbeck appears tobe seeking, noting in particular that the Court has no jurisdiction to change her nameas this must be done by deed poll as has been pointed out by Judge Manuel.[9] In the circumstances there can be no basis for extending time for bringing thisappeal and as a result it must be dismissed.5 My Noodle Ltd v Queenstown-Lakes District Council (2009) 19 PRNZ 518 (CA).Decision[10] The appeal is dismissed._______________________________Powell J