HILL v ADHB-TEWHATU ORANGA [2023] NZHC 1920

HILL v ADHB-TEWHATU ORANGA [2023] NZHC 1920 [21 July 2023]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2023-404-1410[2023] NZHC 1920UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016BETWEEN HAYDN CAMPBELL NICHOLAS HILLPlaintiffAND ADHB-TEWHATU ORANGA :TewhetuTawera Mental Health Services AucklandFirst defendantPOLICE CROWN REPRESENTATIVESecond defendantROBYN LISA ROPATI & DARREN TALAIROPATIThird defendantsHearing: On the papersDate of judgment: 21 July 2023JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE JThis judgment was delivered by me on 21 July 2023 at 3.00pm.Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy Registrar[1] Under r 5.35A(3)(a) of the High Court Rules 2016, the Registrar referred thisproceeding to me as judicial review list judge, for consideration if "plainly an abuseof the process of the court". An 'abuse of the process of the court' is "improper use of[the court's] machinery";1 use of that process "for a purpose or in a way significantlydifferent from its ordinary and proper use".2[2] Mr Hill's claim expressly is made under the "Judicial Review [Procedure] Act2016" and asserts the defendants: have published falsified medical records and provided false informationbetween one another in respect to obtain pecuniary advantage causing [him]significant financial loss and hardship ,also medical misadventure and medicalmalpractice along with negligence, defamation of character ,and surgical error,breach of code of patient rights including [cultural] and religious rights breachof privacy and tort which is nuisancing and [harassment].[3] He explains:[T]his documentation they refer to under clinical notes was labelled as clinicalintervention created 2014 ,2017 then digitally reprinted 13/07/2021 requestedby Redryer and Aedcon to my understanding defines numerology andinfrastructure[.] These documents became computerised and reprinted andstated destroy confidentially once complete on the date 13/07/2021[. T]hesedocuments where in the matter to obtain my personal [properties] and havelead to mistaken identities wrongful diagnosis [altered] times and dates thesuggestion of corruption of police and crown efforts[.][4] He seeks:deletion of the entire falsified documented accounts of any false recordsconcerning my-self or otherwise from all electronical electric mechanical thisincludes quantum archives databases and servers and [infinite] instruction toput in place protection orders of the defendants and their immediateassociations. especially my maternal birthing parent and her lawful weddedhusband and any and all [immediate] surviving family members of the Hillfamilythat the law enforce all legal [penalties] upon the persons responsible for such[heinous] crimes in the publica written apology from all associated with the intention to allow this to everhad occurredalong with 100 million [dollars] in damages including special damages.1 Simon Goulding, DB Casson and William Blake Odgers Odgers on Civil Court Actions (24th ed,Sweet & Maxwell, London 1996) at [10.15] as cited in Commissioner of Inland Revenue vChesterfields Preschools Ltd [2013] NZCA 53, [2013] 2 NZLR 679 at [87].2 Attorney-General v Barker [2000] 1 FLR 759 (QBD) at 764.[5] I apprehend the first defendant is intended to be Health New Zealand,established under the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022, which managesTe Toka Tumai Auckland's Acute Mental Health Unit for Adults, Te Whetu Tawera. Iexpect the second defendant(s) is intended to be the New Zealand Police as or anda representative of the Crown. I do not know who the third defendants are, but theymay be the "maternal birthing parent and her lawful wedded husband" to whomMr Hill refers.[6] Mr Hill also filed another document titled "Statement of claim" dated20 October 2022 in which he complains the "falsified medical records" are being"used to obtain [pecuniary] advantage to obtain the rights to manage my personalproperties and establish the defendants to [be] applying to be my [EPA] power ofattorney". That may refer to the third defendants in this proceeding.[7] The document dated 20 October 2022 also refers to s 6 of theMedicines Act 1981, which provides that Act binds the Crown; s 256 of the CrimesAct 1961, which establishes the crime of forgery; indeterminate legislation perhapsmade under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994; the Protection ofPersonal and Property Rights Act 1988; and other contended sources of legal rights.The 20 October 2022 document does not identify any defendants, but seeks also "theentire [fraudulent] document be completely destroyed from all archives anddatabases", together with "an indefinite protection order" and apologies andcompensation of $20 million.[8] The subject of judicial review is "the exercise, refusal to exercise, or proposedor purported exercise by any person of a statutory power".3 'Statutory power' isdefined.4 On judicial review, this Court assesses if the power is exercised "inaccordance with law, fairly and reasonably".5 If not, there only is limited relief theCourt may grant,6 and it generally is discretionary.73 Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016, s 4.4 Section 5.5 New Zealand Fishing Industry Association Inc v Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries [1988] 1NZLR 544 (CA) at 552.6 Judicial Review Procedure Act, ss 16–19.7 Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2016] NZSC 62, [2016] 1 NZLR 1056 at [112].[9] Mr Hill's claim does not identify any exercise of statutory power with referenceto any of the defendants. I am satisfied the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the processof the court. Under rr 5.35B(1(a) and 15.1, I order the proceeding struck out. Becausemy order is made without giving Mr Hill an opportunity to be heard, he has the rightto appeal against my decision.8[10] I also direct a copy of this judgment be brought to the attention of the Healthand Disability Commissioner by email to hdc@hdc.org.nz, for consideration ifMr Hill's complaints relate to any infringement of his rights as a health consumer.—Jagose J8 High Court Rules, r 5.35B(3).