RACHELLE v TEACHERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL - COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE [2020] NZHC 1395

RACHELLE v TEACHERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL - COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE[2020] NZHC 1395 [19 June 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDINVERCARGILL REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAWAIHŌPAI ROHECIV-2020-425-000029[2020] NZHC 1395BETWEEN GEORGINA RACHELLEAppellantAND TEACHERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL -COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENTCOMMITTEERespondentHearing: On the papersAppearances: Appellant in personJudgment: 19 June 2020JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM JThis judgment was delivered by me on 19 June 2020 at 2.30 pm, pursuant tor 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate: 19 June 2020[1] I have had referred to me a document described as a "Notice of Appeal-onminutes made by Judge M J Hunt regrading (sic) [as to Costs] and legal proceedingsin general Dated 9 June 2020".[2] The proceeding has been referred to me under High Court Rules 2016, r 5.35Ato consider whether the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the Court and therefore ableto be dealt with under the provisions of r 5.35B.[3] Rule 5.35B allows me, if I am satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuseof the process of the Court, to:make an order or give directions to ensure that the proceeding is disposed ofor, 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 served until thestay is lifted;(d) no application to lift the stay be heard until the person who filed theproceeding files further documents as specified in the order (forexample, an amended statement of claim or particulars of claim).Background[4] Ms Rachelle became a registered teacher by virtue of the recognition of herqualifications from Australia in New Zealand. However, she was subsequentlyconvicted of drink driving offences and referred by the Complaints AssessmentCommittee to the New Zealand Teachers Council Disciplinary Tribunal for review ofher status as a registered teacher. By a decision dated 17 July the Tribunal, pursuantto the Education Act 1989 censored Ms Rachelle and her registration was cancelled.[5] She has appealed that decision. However, she also sought to bring civilproceedings against the defendant, seeking $300,000 in compensation, and that aspectwas the subject of a strike-out application. Following the hearing on 7 May 2020,Judge Hunt issued a decision on 12 May 2020 striking out the claim on a number ofgrounds. The Judge noted:1[t]he pleadings and submissions lacked structure and logical order and theclear application of recognised legal principles to the facts. As was apparentin the oral submissions, Ms Rachelle feels strongly that the decision to cancelher teacher registration is wrong but this decision deals with the civil claim,not the appeal.1 Rachelle v Complaints Assessment Committee of Education of Aotearoa [2020] NZDC 8178 at[18].[6] The Judge attempted to analyse her claim but he held that she did not identifyany legal basis for the compensation she sought and her pleadings were "garbled anddifficult to follow". He concluded that:2the pleadings are beyond repair. Judicial directions have not been compliedwith. The pleadings have been amended but to no net effect. The claimsfor damages/compensation are misconceived and have no legal foundationand are not pleaded in a coherent or orderly way.[7] Accordingly, he struck out the claims for compensation, but he concluded "theappeal may proceed. The following directions are made to advance the appeal tohearing."Discussion[8] With that background in mind, the document filed by Ms Rachelle isperplexing. It appears to reiterate her various objections to the decision made by theTribunal saying "Ms Rachelle is dissatisfied with All the decision of the DisciplinaryTribunal documented in Section "C" and wishes to appeal". The body of the documentdoes not comprise legal pleadings, but is really a rambling narrative of Ms Rachelle'scomplaints and an account of her personal circumstances in support of her appeal.Near the conclusion, under the heading "Cause of Action", she asks for "[a] hearingto be conducted at the Queenstown District Court for the Plaintiff to seek Justice,whilst providing evidential evidence to the court.[9] I am satisfied that the documents in their current form are an abuse of process.It is impossible to see what aspect of Judge Hunt's decision she is appealing. It seems(though I cannot be sure) that she is under the misapprehension that her appeal cannotproceed. That is incorrect. The pleadings are otherwise rambling and argumentative.There is no ground of appeal disclosed.[10] In short, I am unable to see, on the face of the documents, that there is a viableclaim which this Court could consider.2 At [42].[11] Accordingly, the purported proceedings are struck out under High Courtr 5.35B.Copy to: Ms Rachelle