HOLLAND v NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD [2014] NZHC 1530
Registrar was justified in noting procedural defects but the Court nonetheless directed the Registrar to accept the applicant's handwritten documents, provide sample notice and a fee waiver form, and require the applicant to file a statement of claim and proper notice of proceeding; interim relief cannot be granted...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] NZHC 1530
- Parties
- Applicant: Glenn Roderick Holland; Respondent: New Zealand Parole Board
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 3 July 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Application for Review of Registrar's Decision
- Outcome
- Application to review Registrar's refusal was allowed in part: Registrar directed to accept handwritten documents and assist applicant; applicant required to file substantive documents; Registrar to accept or refer to Duty Judge once filed.
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Procedural Compliance, Access to Justice, Interim Relief, Court Rules
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Glenn Roderick Holland
Applicant
New Zealand Parole Board
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Review of Registrar's Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Registrar correctly refused to receive handwritten without notice application
- 2 Whether interim relief could be granted absent a substantive application for judicial review
- 3 Whether the Registrar should be directed to accept handwritten documents and provide procedural assistance
Ratio Decidendi
Registrar was justified in noting procedural defects but the Court nonetheless directed the Registrar to accept the applicant's handwritten documents, provide sample notice and a fee waiver form, and require the applicant to file a statement of claim and proper notice of proceeding; interim relief cannot be granted absent a substantive filed application.
Court Disposition
Application to review Registrar's refusal was allowed in part: Registrar directed to accept handwritten documents and assist applicant; applicant required to file substantive documents; Registrar to accept or refer to Duty Judge once filed.
Orders
- Registrar to accept handwritten documents from Mr Holland.
- Mr Holland must file a statement of claim setting out the basis of the substantive review and file a notice of proceeding in proper form.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
HOLLAND v NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD [2014] NZHC 1530 [3 July 2014]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV-2014-404-1644[2014] NZHC 1530BETWEEN GLENN RODERICK HOLLANDApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARDRespondentHearing: On the papersAppearances: G R Holland in personJudgment: 3 July 2014JUDGMENT OF LANG J[on application for review of Registrar's decision]This judgment was delivered by me on 3 July 2014 at 2.30 pm,pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDate[1] I have been asked to review the Registrar's decision declining to receive MrHolland's handwritten without notice application dated 23 April 2014.[2] The Registrar rejected Mr Holland's application on the basis that it comprisedboth an application for judicial review and a without notice application for interim relief. The reasons for the Registrar's rejection of the documents were stated in aletter dated 26 May 2014 as follows:(a) No fee or fee waiver was filed with the application.(b) The Registrar has not granted leave under r 5.2 of the High Court Rules (HCR) to allow the handwritten application to be accepted asrequired by r 5.4.(c) No notice of proceeding was received as required under r 5.22 (HCR).[3] Having considered the handwritten documents Mr Holland has filed, it isapparent that he has not filed a substantive application for judicial review. Rather, hehas filed a document in letter form headed "Proposed application for judicialreview".[4] It is not possible for this Court to grant interim relief unless a substantive application for review has first been filed. The interim relief that Mr Holland seeks is an order requiring the Department of Corrections to provide him access with computer facilities so as to permit him to produce typewritten documents for filing in this Court. Mr Holland is frustrated because, in the absence of being permitted to have access to a computer, he is unable to formulate his application for judicial review and supporting documents in a manner that complies with the High Court Rules.[5] I direct that the Registrar is to accept handwritten documents from MrHolland. It will be necessary, however, for Mr Holland to file a statement of claimsetting out the basis of the substantive review that he seeks. Mr Holland will alsoneed to file a notice of proceeding in proper form. The Registrar is to send Mr Holland a sample of that document for his assistance, as well as a fee waiver form.[6] Once these documents have been returned, the Registrar should either accept them or refer them to the Duty Judge for further consideration.Lang JCopy to:Applicant