Cullum v Barfoot

[2020] NZHC 2777

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-1379

[2020] NZHC 2777

UNDER

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986

IN THE MATTER

Of an appeal against a decision of the Auckland District Court

BETWEEN

KATE CULLUM

Appellant

AND

KIRI BARFOOT

Respondent

Hearing:	20 October 2020
Appearances:	No appearance by or on behalf of the Applicant M Singh for the Respondent
Judgment:	22 October 2020

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 October 2020 at 3.30 pm pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

CULLUM v BARFOOT [2020] NZHC 2777 [22 October 2020]

[1]    This application for leave to appeal had been adjourned from 15 September 2020 following the non-appearance of the applicant, Kate Cullum.  My Minute of   15 September 2020 noted a number of issues with the appeal on which I required further information and indicated that if Ms Cullum failed to appear when the appeal was next called on 20 October 2020 it would be likely that the appeal would be struck out without further notice to her.

[2]    In the event Ms Cullum filed a 22-page document entitled “Public memorandum” on 6 October 2020 in which she confirmed that she would not be appearing at the next call of the proceedings. Despite the length of the document it did not address any of the issues identified in my Minute. Instead Ms Cullum spent considerable time addressing an unrelated appeal that had previously been struck out,1 made a range of complaints with regard to the court process generally, and made personal attacks on a range of individuals including the respondent, the respondent’s solicitor, the principal Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator, the District Court Judge whose decision Ms Cullum sought leave to appeal, the Deputy Registrar responsible for the civil appeals list in the Auckland High Court and myself.

[3]    In the circumstances, faced with Ms Cullum’s wilful non-attendance and her failure to address any of the procedural matters requiring resolution, I conclude that allowing Ms Cullum’s application to remain extant can serve no useful purpose. Instead I conclude, in the light of the documents filed by Ms Cullum, the appropriate course is to strike out the application as an abuse of the Court process.2

[4]    The application for leave to appeal is therefore struck out and I make an order for costs on a 2B basis in favour of the respondent.

Powell J

1      Cullum v Gordon [2020] NZHC 1261.

2      The application is struck out pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. See Siemer v Stiassny [2011] NZCA 1 at [15] where the Court of Appeal confirmed the strike out power found in the High Court Rules 2016 does not affect the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to strike out a proceeding (or in this case an application) irrespective of any application for strike out by either of the parties.