KATHRYN LEE CULLUM [2021] NZSC 61

KATHRYN LEE CULLUM [2021] NZSC 61 [11 June 2021]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC UR 10/2021[2021] NZSC 61RE KATHRYN LEE CULLUMApplicantCounsel: Applicant in personJudgment: 11 June 2021JUDGMENT OF GLAZEBROOK JThe application for review of the Deputy Registrar's decisionrefusing to waive the filing fee is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONSIntroduction[1] Ms Cullum applies for an extension of time for leave to appeal against ajudgment of the High Court of 23 March 2021.1[2] On 28 April 2021, the Deputy Registrar of this Court declined Ms Cullum'sapplication for a waiver of the $400 interlocutory application filing fee. This wasbecause he considered the proposed appeal raises issues specific to Ms Cullum and hewas not satisfied that the proposed appeal concerned a question of law of general orpublic importance.2[3] On 26 May 2021, Ms Cullum applied for a review of the Deputy Registrar'sdecision.1 Cullum v Barfoot [2021] NZHC 601 (Powell J) [HC judgment].2 This meant that the requirement set out in reg 5(2)(b)(1) of the Supreme Court Fees Regulations2003 was not met.Powell J's decision[4] Powell J set out the relevant background to the case in the following passage:3I have previously dismissed the applicant Ms Cullum's application for leaveto appeal on this file4 and subsequently declined an application for leave toappeal my decision to the Court of Appeal.5 I have also previously struck outanother application for leave to appeal by Ms Cullum in Cullum v Gordon.6Ms Cullum nonetheless pursued both matters to the Court of Appeal whereshe was told that she had no right to bring any further appeal on the Cullum vGordon matter,7 while the Court of Appeal ultimately declined to accept forfiling her application for special leave to appeal the Cullum v Barfoot matteron the grounds it was plainly abusive.8 An application to recall that judgmentwas also dismissed.9[5] He then explained that Ms Cullum had attempted to file further documents inthe High Court. He said:10Undeterred, Ms Cullum has now filed further documents in the High Court.It is difficult to understand exactly what she is seeking from this Court but heroverall intention appears to be to ultimately pursue both the Cullum v Barfootand Cullum v Gordon matters in the Supreme Court, and also appears to takeissue with the refusal of the District Court to decline a stay of proceedings inthe meantime.11[6] The Judge, in light of the background, struck out the documents as an abuse ofprocess. He said:12Given the effect of my earlier decisions and the decisions of the Court ofAppeal, to the extent that Ms Cullum seeks to revisit either Cullum v Barfootor Cullum v Gordon, this is without doubt an abuse of process that must be,and is, struck out. To the extent Ms Cullum is purporting to challenge thedecision of Judge M B Sharp on the refusal to grant a stay, no reason has beenidentified as to why Her Honour's decision was incorrect and on the contrary,given Ms Cullum's appeal rights have been effectively exhausted, there canbe no grounds for any stay in relation to either of these proceedings.Therefore, to the extent that Ms Cullum has sought leave to appeal the staydecision her application is also dismissed.3 HC judgment, above n 1, at [1].4 Cullum v Barfoot [2020] NZHC 2777.5 Cullum v Barfoot (Application for leave to appeal) [2020] NZHC 3507.6 Cullum v Gordon [2020] NZHC 1261.7 Cullum v Gordon [2020] NZCA 624 at [8].8 Cullum v Barfoot [2021] NZCA 53 at [7]–[8].9 Cullum v Barfoot [2021] NZCA 76.10 HC judgment, above n 1, at [2].11 Cullum v Barfoot & Thompson [2021] NZDC 2985.12 HC judgment, above n 1, at [3].[7] In addition, the Judge commented that the documents filed were abusive and,as such, a further abuse of the process of the Court.13 The Judge directed the Registrynot to accept any further documents on the relevant matters for filing.14My assessment[8] In light of the above background, the Deputy Registrar was clearly correct inhis assessment and, indeed, the application for leave to appeal is an abuse of process.Result[9] The application for review of the Deputy Registrar's decision refusing to waivethe filing fee is dismissed.13 At [4].14 At [5].