DUNSTAN v IPCA [2023] NZHC 2961

DUNSTAN v IPCA [2023] NZHC 2961 [20 October 2023]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHECIV-2023-485-617[2023] NZHC 2961BETWEEN TANYA FELICITY DUNSTANPlaintiffAND INDEPENDENT POLICE CONDUCTAUTHORITYDefendantHearing: On the papersAppearances: Plaintiff in personJudgment: 20 October 2023JUDGMENT OF GRICE J(Referral by Registrar under r 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016)Introduction[1] The Registrar has referred to me for consideration under r 5.35B of theHigh Court Rules 2016 (the Rules) a statement of claim dated 3 October 2023 filed byMs Dunstan as plaintiff.[2] The defendant is the Independent Police Conduct Authority (the IPCA).Power of the Registrar to refer proceedings[3] Rules 5.35A–5.35C of the Rules provide for the Registrar to refer to a Judgeproceedings that on their face are an abuse of process. The Judge, if satisfied that theproceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court, may (among other orders),strike out or stay the proceedings.1[4] This strike out jurisdiction is exercised sparingly as it contemplates a litigantbeing denied the fundamental right of access to the Courts. The abuse must be clearand beyond doubt from reading the claim.2[5] The Court has adopted the following two-limbed test for strike out purposesunder the rule:3(a) whether it would be manifestly unfair to the respondents that they berequired to respond; and(b) whether "right thinking people" would regard the Court as exercisingvery poor control of its processes if it were to allow the applicant'sdocument to be regarded as a proper document or, if the irregularitiesare not obvious on their face, whether right-thinking people wouldconsider the court was exercising poor control of its processes if itpermitted the matter to proceed further.4The statement of claim[6] The statement of claim is described on the front page as "Statement of Claimfor Tort of Professional Negligence". The intituling refers to a number of pieces oflegislation and "Law of tort".5[7] The pleading is a mixture of narrative and submissions concerning allegedpolice actions. At [2] under the heading "Introduction" it states: "Since June 2018 I1 High Court Rules 2016, rr 5.35B(1) and (2)(a)–(b).2 Siemer v Complete Construction Ltd [2022] NZCA 262, (2022) 26 PRNZ 137 at [40]–[50].3 Siemer v Complete Construction Ltd, above n 2; and Mathiesen v Slevin [2018] NZHC 1032,(2018) 25 PRNZ 116 at [6].4 O'Neill v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2023] NZCA 152 at [33].5 The references in the intituling are to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; Law of tort; HighCourt Rules 220106 (sic); Crimes of Torture Act 1989; Human Rights Act 1993; Harassment Act1997; Declarations Act 1908". The reference to the Declarations Act is likely intended to referencethe Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 instead.have been having difficulties with ongoing harassment of the New Zealand Police."The statement of claim goes on to say that Ms Dunstan had exhausted "all avenues toregulate the New Zealand police to cease their harassment and disregard" for herselfand her children's rights. She says that is not her responsibility but rather that of theIPCA who "promote to the public a service they alleged to be a regulating body of TheNew Zeland [sic] Police. [Fair Trading Act 1980 s13] [sic]". It goes on to say theproceedings are brought to the Court "for the address of the judge responsible for theIPCA for fair and reasonable directions to cease what can only be described as ablatant disregard for the law buy [sic] law enforcement officers spanning for almost 5years."[8] The document claims relief including damages of $850,000 for the defendant's"gross lack of professionalism and negligence which at times has appeared maliciousand deliberate." The statement of claim purports to be based on the "tort ofprofessional negligence" but the pleadings indicate the claim is more in the nature ofjudicial review concerning the regulation of the police. However, if it is a judicialreview, the plaintiff has not referred to any relevant decisions that might be the subjectof judicial review.[9] The document refers to a series of instances involving the police and sets outexcerpts from legislation including the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 (s 3, referring toacts of torture), the Crimes Act 1961 (including s 115, referring to conspiring to bringfalse accusation, and other provisions), the Harassment Act 1997, the Police Code ofConduct and "S13 Fair Trade Act 1986". The last reference is likely a reference to theFair Trading Act 1986. Section 13 of that Act relates to persons in trade making falseand misleading representations in connection with the supply of goods or services.Discussion and conclusion[10] The pleading does not disclose any comprehensible cause of action. It amountsto a series of allegations by Ms Dunstan regarding police action and excerpts fromlegislation. The police are not a party to the claim.[11] The proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court. I am satisfiedthat right-thinking people would consider the Court was exercising poor control of itsprocesses if it permitted the document to be regarded as a proper document or for thematter to proceed further. It is struck out.[12] Rule 5.35B(3) requires me to advise the plaintiff of her right to appeal to theCourt of Appeal against my decision. I now formally notify her of that right.____________________Grice J