STOCKMAN v NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OF COUNSELLORS INCORPORATED [2018] NZCA 532

STOCKMAN v NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OF COUNSELLORS INCORPORATED [2018] NZCA 532[29 November 2018]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA493/2018[2018] NZCA 532BETWEEN PETER GERARD STOCKMANApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OFCOUNSELLORS INCORPORATEDRespondentCourt: Brown and Clifford JJCounsel: Applicant in personC Heaton for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)29 November 2018 at 10.30 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is declined.B The application for name suppression is declined.C There is no order for costs.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Clifford J)Introduction[1] Mr Stockman applies for leave to appeal from a decision of Cull J in theHigh Court declining to recuse herself.1 He also applies for name suppression.1 Stockman v New Zealand Assoc of Counsellors Inc [2017] NZHC 2223 [recusal decision].Background[2] The background can be summarised briefly. Mr Stockman laid a complaintabout counselling services he received from a member of the respondent association,the New Zealand Assoc of Counsellors Inc (NZACI). NZACI dealt with his complaintbut not to Mr Stockman's satisfaction, so he commenced proceedings in the HighCourt. NZACI applied for a stay, on the basis the allegations in the statement of claimwere not reasonably arguable. The Judge adjourned the hearing so that Mr Stockmancould reconsider or amend his statement of claim, not being prepared to grant a stayor strike out without giving such an opportunity to Mr Stockman.2 Mr Stockman thenfiled an application for Cull J's recusal. This was declined.3 Cull J then declined leaveto appeal under s 56(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016.4 Mr Stockman now applies forleave to appeal under s 56(5) of the Senior Courts Act.Submissions[3] The application for leave to appeal is advanced on the basis that the Judge erredin fact and law in declining to recuse herself. Mr Stockman says the Judge is biasedon a number of counts. First, he says that the Judge prejudged the merits by suggestingcauses of action six to eight in the statement of claim were doomed and should bedropped off. The Judge also failed to read his written submissions and listen to hisoral submissions. Secondly, he says the Judge is prejudiced against self-representedlitigants and has a vested interest in keeping time-consuming self-represented litigantsout of the courts. Finally, Mr Stockman points to the Judge's role, before herappointment, as expert advisor to the Law Commission's Understanding FamilyViolence — Reforming the Criminal Law Relating to Homicide Report.5 Given thenature of the allegations raised in the statement of claim, Mr Stockman says theJudge's continued involvement in the current proceedings is unsustainable.[4] The respondent abides the decision of the Court.2 Stockman v New Zealand Assoc of Counsellors Inc HC Wellington CIV-2017-485-325, 23 August2017 (Minute) [adjournment decision].3 Recusal decision, above n 1.4 Stockman v New Zealand Assoc of Counsellors Inc [2018] NZHC 1902 [leave decision].5 Law Commission Understanding Family Violence — Reforming the Criminal Law Relating toHomicide (NZLC R139, 2015).Analysis[5] We are satisfied there is nothing in the proposed appeal. First, the Judge'ssuggestion that the cause of action be refined was merely an indication of a preliminaryview. Some predisposition or inclination toward an argument or conclusion istolerable.6 A preliminary view would need to be expressed in an extreme andunbalanced way to disqualify a judge.7 That is a far cry from this case. It is clear thatCull J was simply trying to assist Mr Stockman to refine his pleadings.[6] Secondly, Mr Stockman's allegations of bias arising out of Cull J's priorinvolvement with the Law Commission are also unmeritorious. To the extent theyrequire a reply, the Supreme Court's decision in A (SC106/2015) v R provides theanswer. The Supreme Court refers to the England and Wales Court of Appeal'sdecision in Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd, where it was noted that"at any rate ordinarily" no objection could be soundly based on extracurricularutterances by judges, including in textbooks, lectures, speeches and articles.8A final matter[7] The final question is whether Mr Stockman's application for name suppressionought to be granted. The application is advanced on the basis that publication ofMr Stockman's name will likely identify a third party. We note that, in separateproceedings, that third party's name has been suppressed, although Mr Stockman'swas not.9[8] These are separate proceedings. No order was sought in the current High Courtproceedings for the suppression of the third party's name. Similarly, no order wassought in the High Court for the suppression of Mr Stockman's name. It is open toMr Stockman to apply to the High Court for suppression of either his name or the thirdparty's name. In the meantime, and in all these circumstances, we decline to grantname suppression.6 A (SC106/2015) v R [2016] NZSC 31 at [22]; relying on Minister for Immigration andMulticultural Affairs v Jia [2001] HCA 17, (2001) 205 CLR 507 at 532.7 A (SC106/2015) v R, above n 6, at [25].8 At [24], citing Locobail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] QB 451 (CA) at 480.9 Stockman v New Zealand Assoc of Counsellors Inc [2013] NZHC 2267; aff'd [2015] NZCA 542.Result[9] The application for leave to appeal is declined.[10] The application for name suppression is declined.[11] There is no order for costs.Solicitors:Morrison Kent, Wellington for Respondent