Cullum v Barfoot

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-1379

[2021] NZHC 601

BETWEEN
KATE CULLUM

Appellant

AND

KIRI BARFOOT

Respondent

On the papers: At Whangarei

Judgment:

23 March 2021

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

[Application for leave to appeal and Application for stay of proceedings]

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 March 2021 at 3.30 pm pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

CULLUM v BARFOOT [2021] NZHC 601 [23 March 2021]

[1] I have previously dismissed the applicant Ms Cullum’s application for leave to appeal on this file1 and subsequently declined an application for leave to appeal my decision to the Court of Appeal.2 I have also previously struck out another application for leave to appeal by Ms Cullum in Cullum v Gordon.3 Ms Cullum nonetheless pursued both matters to the Court of Appeal where she was told that she had no right to bring any further appeal on the Cullum v Gordon matter,4 while the Court of Appeal ultimately declined to accept for filing her application for special leave to appeal the Cullum v Barfoot matter on the grounds it was plainly abusive.5 An application to recall that judgment was also dismissed.6

[2] Undeterred, 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 her overall intention appears to be to ultimately pursue both the Cullum v Barfoot and Cullum v Gordon matters in the Supreme Court, and also appears to take issue with the refusal of the District Court to decline a stay of proceedings in the meantime.7

[3] Given the effect of my earlier decisions and the decisions of the Court of Appeal, to the extent that Ms Cullum seeks to revisit either Cullum v Barfoot or 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 the decision of Judge M B Sharp on the refusal to grant a stay, no reason has been identified as to why Her Honour’s decision was incorrect and on the contrary, given Ms Cullum’s appeal rights have been effectively exhausted, there can be 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 stay decision her application is also dismissed.

[4] In addition, Ms Cullum’s attempts to revisit the earlier decisions of this Court and the Court of Appeal are not only an abuse of process but they are also, as Miller J noted in the Court of Appeal, plainly abusive. As the previous judgments of this Court

1      Cullum v Barfoot [2020] NZHC 2777.
2      Cullum v Barfoot (Application for leave to appeal) [2020] NZHC 3507.
3      Cullum v Gordon [2020] NZHC 1261.
4      Cullum v Gordon [2020] NZCA 624 at [8].
5      Cullum v Barfoot [2021] NZCA 53 at [7]-[8].
6      Cullum v Barfoot [2021] NZCA 76.
7      Cullum v Barfoot & Thompson [2021] NZDC 2985.

and the Court of Appeal have noted, this is a consistent feature of the documents filed by Ms Cullum. There can be no doubt that the sustained level of abuse contained in the documents she has filed in and of itself constitutes a further and ongoing abuse of the process of this Court.

[5] In these circumstances, as well as dismissing Ms Cullum’s applications for the reasons set out above, I also direct that the Registry is not to receive for filing any further documents on either Cullum v Barfoot or Cullum v Gordon.

Powell J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Cullum v Barfoot, Kate Cullum, the appellant, sought leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court, which had dismissed her application for leave to appeal in a previous case. The respondent, Kiri Barfoot, had previously been involved in legal proceedings with the appellant. The matter was heard in the Auckland Registry of the High Court of New Zealand. The court had to determine whether the appellant's application for leave to appeal and the application for a stay of proceedings were justified, considering the previous dismissals and strikes out of similar applications by the appellant.

The primary legal issues revolved around whether the appellant's continued attempts to appeal the court's decisions constituted an abuse of process and whether there were any grounds to grant a stay of proceedings. The court had to assess the appellant's persistence in filing numerous applications, despite the clear indications from the earlier judgments that her appeals were without merit and constituted an abuse of the judicial process.

The High Court found that the appellant's continued attempts to appeal the decisions were indeed an abuse of process. The court had previously dismissed the appellant's applications for leave to appeal and had struck out her applications as abusive. The Court of Appeal had also dismissed her applications, indicating that her appeal rights had been effectively exhausted. The court noted that the appellant's filings were not only an abuse of process but also plainly abusive, as they showed a consistent pattern of disregard for the court's authority. Consequently, the court dismissed the appellant's applications and directed the Registry not to accept any further filings in relation to the cases.

This judgment underscores the importance of respecting the finality of court decisions and the need to prevent the abuse of judicial processes through repeated, meritless appeals.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established