JAMES v DISTRICT COURT AT WHANGANUI [2023] NZCA 181

JAMES v DISTRICT COURT AT WHANGANUI [2023] NZCA 181 [18 May 2023]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA493/2022[2023] NZCA 181BETWEEN JAMESAppellantAND DISTRICT COURT AT WHANGANUIRespondentCourt: Courtney and Mallon JJJudgment:(On the papers)18 May 2023 at 10.30 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe appeal is struck out.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Courtney J)Introduction[1] The appellant, who goes only by the name James, brought judicial reviewproceedings in the High Court in February 2022 in which he sought an injunctionagainst the Whanganui District Court. The terms of the injunction were directedtowards halting or challenging proceedings brought against James in District Court.It is not possible to discern the subject matter of the District Court proceedings withany certainty from the documents James has filed.[2] Churchman J struck out the judicial review proceeding as an abuse of process.1James filed an appeal against Churchman J's decision. In a minute, Miller J directedthat the Court consider striking the appeal out as an abuse of process under r 44A ofthe Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 (the Rules).2 He directed that James be giventhe requisite notice under r 44A(2) and, on the expiry of the time for submissions, theRegistrar refer the appeal to a panel for decision on the papers. This is the issue nowbefore us.[3] Rule 44A relevantly provides:(1) In addition to any express power in these rules to strike out an appeal,the court may, on an interlocutory application or on its own initiative,make an order striking out or staying an appeal in whole or in part if—(c) the appeal is frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of theprocess of the court.[4] In Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd, this Courtexplained that:3 a "frivolous" pleading is one which trifles with the court's processes, whilea vexatious one contains an element of impropriety. [One that is]"otherwise an abuse of the process of the court" extends beyond the othergrounds and captures all other instances of misuse of the court's processes,such as a [proceeding] that has been brought with an improper motive or arean attempt to obtain a collateral benefit.The High Court decision[5] As noted, Churchman J struck out James' proceeding under r 15.1(1) of theHigh Court Rules 2016.4 Rule 15.1(1) permits the court to strike out a pleading that:(a) discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action, defence, or caseappropriate to the nature of the pleading; or1 James v District Court at Whanganui [2022] NZHC 2309 [High Court judgment]2 James v District Court at Whanganui CA493/2022, 14 March 2022.3 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd [2013] NZCA 53, [2013] 2 NZLR679 at [89] (footnote omitted). This case was concerned with r 15.1 of the High Court Rules 2016but the explanation is of general application.4 James' proceeding was initially referred to Churchman J for consideration as whether it should bestruck out under r 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016. However, the Judge was not satisfied thatr 5.35B could be invoked because it required that the proceeding by referred to a judge as soon aspracticable after being filed and that had not happened: High Court judgment, above n 1, at [3].(b) is likely to cause prejudice or delay; or(c) is frivolous or vexatious; or(d) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.[6] In his pleading, James sought to distinguish between "the Man James" and "theLegal Fiction Person JAMES JONES" and asserted that District Court required theformer's written consent to "conduct any business" with the latter and that consent hadbeen withdrawn.[7] It appeared to Churchman J that the form and wording of James' statement ofclaim was consistent with that typically advanced by the "Organised PseudolegalCommercial Argument Litigants" who adhere to the "Sovereign Citizen movement".5Essentially, these arguments proceed on the premise that an individual has both anatural persona and a separate legal or "corporate" persona and that the natural personcannot be subject to the jurisdiction of the state without their consent. The Court haspreviously held that this position is untenable.6 Almost always, it will be viewed asan abuse of process by a litigant.7 Churchman J concluded that there was no legalbasis for James' claim against the Whanganui District Court and that the proceedingwas an abuse of process.8Consideration of the appeal under r 44A(1) of the Rules[8] It appears from James' submissions that he believes he requires (and has beengranted) leave to appeal. However, under s 56(1)(a) and (4) of the Senior CourtsAct 2016 James has a right to appeal the High Court decision and does not requireleave. Nevertheless, the fact that James has a right to bring an appeal does not precludethat appeal being struck out under r 44A(1) of the Rules if the Court is satisfied that itis an abuse of the Court's process.5 At [8]–[11], citing Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 105at [9]; Meads v Meads [2012] ABQB 571, 543 AR 215; and Niwa v Commissioner of InlandRevenue [2019] NZHC 853, [2019] NZAR 1104.6 Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, above n 5, at [11].7 Niwa v Commissioner of Inland Revenue, above n 5, at [16].8 High Court judgment, above n 1, at [14]–[15].[9] Otherwise, James' submissions in response to Miller J's minute can besummarised as being that his appeal is not an abuse of the process of the Court becausehis view of the law is right — that is, the District Court acted unlawfully, theHigh Court has failed to acknowledge his application for a "Void Order of Court", andJames now has a "fundamental Right of a hearing" in this Court.[10] The grounds of appeal, although expressed in a convoluted manner andalthough denying the concepts of "Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument"and "sovereign citizen", nevertheless rest on the argument regarding the "separation"between natural and legal persons and the rejection of Acts of Parliament unlessconsent has been given. They can be summarised as being that the District Court hasno jurisdiction over James without him giving his consent, which he has not done, andthat Churchman J erred in rejecting this argument.[11] The arguments that James relies on are properly characterised as "sovereigncitizen" type arguments. They cannot succeed. Apart from the sovereign citizenarguments, there is no genuinely identifiable legal or factual error asserted. We aresatisfied that the appeal cannot succeed. We consider that it is properly viewed as bothvexatious and an abuse of the Court's process.Result[12] The appeal is struck out.