Davis v District Court at Dunedin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2024-412-122

[2025] NZHC 2820

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER

of the review of a decision of the

District Court that a charging document not be accepted for filing

BETWEEN

ARTEMIS INDIGO DELILAH DAVIS

Applicant

AND

THE DISTRICT COURT AT DUNEDIN

First Respondent

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Second Respondent

Hearing: (On the papers)

Counsel:

A I D Davis (Applicant) in Person

J N E Varuhas and M G Hyslop for Second Respondent

Judgment:

26 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

[1] In this proceeding for judicial review, I made case management directions on 25 September 2025 in a number of interlocutory applications the applicant has filed.

[2] The case management directions included such matters as the dates for filing evidence and submissions.

DAVIS v THE DISTRICT COURT AT DUNEDIN [2025] NZHC 2820 [26 September 2025]

Application for leave

[3] The applicant has filed an application for leave to appeal against the directions. For statutory jurisdiction, she invokes ss 56 and 180 Senior Courts Act 2016.

Decision

[4]I refuse leave to appeal.

[5] The subject matter of the proposed appeal are case management directions of a procedural nature.

[6] When regard is had to the guidance of the Court of Appeal in Regan v Gill,1 the case management directions made are entirely unsuitable to be the subject of an appeal.

Osborne J

Solicitors:
Crown Law, Wellington (for Second Respondent)

Copy to:
A I D Davis (self-represented Applicant)

1 Regan v Gill [2011] NZCA 607 at [15].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Artemis Indigo Delilah Davis sought judicial review of a decision by the District Court at Dunedin, which refused to accept a charging document for filing. The applicant, representing herself, contested the decision and sought leave to appeal the case management directions issued by the High Court. The Attorney-General appeared on behalf of the second respondent. Osborne J refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal the case management directions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had the right to appeal the case management directions issued by the High Court. The applicant invoked sections 56 and 180 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 for statutory jurisdiction. The court had to determine whether the case management directions were appropriate for appeal, considering the guidance provided by the Court of Appeal in Regan v Gill.

The court found that the case management directions were of a procedural nature, and the Court of Appeal had previously stated in Regan v Gill that such matters were not typically suitable for appeal. Osborne J emphasised that the directions did not involve any substantive error of law and were within the discretion of the High Court. Therefore, the court refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal, as the directions did not meet the criteria for appealability. The court considered the guidance from Regan v Gill, which stated that case management directions were not ordinarily subject to appeal unless there was a significant error of law or principle.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

UNDER	the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016
IN THE MATTER	of the review of a decision of the District Court that a charging document not be accepted for filing
BETWEEN	ARTEMIS INDIGO DELILAH DAVIS Applicant
AND	THE DISTRICT COURT AT DUNEDIN First Respondent
AND	THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Second Respondent