Cullum v Gordon

[2020] NZHC 1261

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-707

[2020] NZHC 1261

UNDER

The Contractual Law Act 2017, ss 35-37 and the Residential Tenancies Act, Section 5.

BETWEEN

KATE CULLUM

Applicant

AND

JOANNA GORDON

Respondent

Hearing:	9 June 2020
Appearances:	No appearance by or on behalf of the Applicant No appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent (papers not released for service)
Judgment:	9 June 2020

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 June 2020 at 3.30 pm pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

CULLUM v GORDON [2020] NZHC 1261 [9 June 2020]

[1]    In my Minute of 2 June 2020 I noted that the application for leave to appeal filed by Ms Cullum appeared to be an abuse of the process of this Court and directed that the application was to be called in the Appeals list this morning. I confirmed that Ms Cullum would have the opportunity to explain to me why her application for leave to appeal should be allowed to proceed or whether it should be struck out, noting that in the event Ms Cullum did not attend Court the application was likely to be dismissed. In the meantime I directed the Registry not to release the service papers pending further order of the Court.

[2]    Since the Minute was issued Ms Cullum has provided further emails to the Court, the latest one containing a 40-page submission dated 8 September 2020, but has confirmed that she will not be attending Court in support of her application.

[3]    Having read the various documents filed by Ms Cullum including the submission, it confirms my initial view that the application is an abuse of the process of this Court. The language used throughout all of the documents filed by Ms Cullum, including the application for leave and the proposed notice of appeal, is in fact wildly inappropriate, consisting of sustained and gratuitous personal attacks on the respondent and a variety of other individuals, including the Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator and the District Court Judge whose decision Ms Cullum seeks to appeal. Throughout these attacks, which are couched in extreme religious language, there is not the slightest suggestion of a bona fide issue that may call into question the judgment sought to be appealed. In those circumstances I have no hesitation in exercising my inherent jurisdiction and dismissing the application for leave to appeal as a manifest abuse of the process of this Court.

[4]The application for leave to appeal is hereby dismissed.

Powell J