State Housing Action Incorporated v Minister Responsible for Housing New Zealand Corporation and for Finance [2016] NZHC 2131

State Housing Action Incorporated v Minister Responsible for Housing New Zealand Corporation and for Finance [2016] NZHC 2131 [8 September 2016]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDTAURANGA REGISTRYCIV-2016-470-139[2016] NZHC 2131IN THE MATTER of an application for Review pursuant tothe Judicature Amendment Act 1972BETWEEN STATE HOUSING ACTIONINCORPORATEDPlaintiffAND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FORHOUSING NEW ZEALANDCORPORATION AND FOR FINANCEDefendantHearing: On the papersCounsel: MJ Sharp for plaintiffJudgment: 8 September 2016JUDGMENT OF FAIRE JSolicitors: Toni Brown Law, Tauranga (T Brown)[1] The intending plaintiff applies to review a decision of Deputy-Registrar Hewlett given 25 August 2016.[2] The review is sought in view of a decision made in reliance on r 2.11(1)(b). Deputy-Registrar Hewlett refused to accept the intending plaintiff's documents forfiling.[3] Rule 2:11(1)(b) provides:2.11 Review of Registrar's decision(1) An affected party to a proceeding or an intended proceeding may apply to a Judge by interlocutory application for a review of any of the following::(b) a Registrar's refusal to file a document tendered for filing:[4] The intending plaintiff advised that it will make changes to the intitulling, as suggested by the Deputy-Registrar. I therefore proceed on the basis that the documents will be amended so that the changes to the intitulling as suggested by the Deputy-Registrar are made. On that basis, no further ruling is required of me on that matter.[5] The review is in respect of documents presented for filing on 24 August 2016.[6] The review application, together with a statement of claim in a form which apparently is different from that considered by the Deputy-Registrar was filed on 1 September 2016.[7] What is apparent is that the statement of claim, which has now been presented to the High Court for filing, is in different form from that which was presented with documents on 24 August 2016. All reference to Accessible Properties has been removed from the document.[8] The removal of reference to Accessible Properties is consistent with what the intending plaintiff said, by counsel, would be done. In particular, paragraph 31 ofcounsel's memorandum records:In order to emphasise that the proceedings are not directed to Accessible Properties themselves, counsel can indicate that the statement of claim is intended to be filed with the amendment to delete the references to Accessible Properties in the prayer for relief for each of the two causes.[9] The review, in this case, is rendered moot. No decision has been made by the Deputy-Registrar on the statement of claim which now sits on the Court file and, apparently, awaits a determination as to whether it should be received for filing or not.[10] The application for review is accordingly dismissed. The file is referred to the Registrar to consider formal receipt of the statement of claim and supporting documents as presented.[11] The applicant's application for review sought costs. Costs are not appropriatehaving regard to the changes made to the statement of claim and the fact, as I have ruled, the application for review is rendered moot by them. Accordingly, no order for costs is made.____________________JA Faire J