Davis v Westgate

[2025] NZHC 2222

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2025-412-077

[2025] NZHC 2222

UNDER

the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

BETWEEN

ARTEMIS INDIGO DELILAH DAVIS

Plaintiff

AND

JOHN ARTHUR WESTGATE

Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	Ms Davis appears in person
Judgment:	7 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 August 2025 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

DAVIS v WESTGATE [2025] NZHC 2222 [7 August 2025]

[1]                 Ms Davis filed a claim against the defendant on 30 July 2025 which was followed by a memorandum filed on 1 August 2025 seeking service directions. The particular directions sought were:

I seek direction, by virtue of the High Court Rules 206, r 61.(2), that service shall occur by means of electronic communication to the email address listed above or be given effect by the Registrar of the District Court of Dunedin at the Defendant’s next appearance as counsel, or otherwise by means of post to the Defendant’s listed P.O. Box, by virtue of High Court Rules 2016, r 6.1(c).

[2]No affidavit accompanied the memorandum.

[3]                 In a Minute of 1 August 2025 I refused to make the directions sought, noting that service of the proceeding was to be effected in accordance with r 6.1(1) of the High Court Rules 2016 (the Rules) unless the defendant agreed to accept service in some other manner under r 6.7.

[4]                 Ms Davis has now filed an application seeking leave to appeal. The grounds upon which leave to appeal is sought are:

1.Paulsen AJ is statutorily prohibited from exercising the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court of New Zealand in this proceeding;

2.Paulsen AJ is incapable of being regarded as being of impartial mind in any proceeding in which [Ms Davis is] a party;

3.notwithstanding flagrant partiality and reckless incompetence, Paulsen AJ has otherwise erred in law when alleging interlocutory applications to be required when seeking service directions while High Court Rules 2016 do not stipulate any such requirement, and

4.the Respondent is failing to respond to emails, refusing to answer phone calls, and otherwise failing to reply to text messages.

[5]                 The requirement to obtain leave to appeal from interlocutory orders is contained in s 56(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The principles that apply to such an application are well established and are set out by the Court of Appeal in Greendrake v District Court of New Zealand.1 The requirement for leave to appeal is a filtering mechanism, to ensure that unmeritorious appeals of no significance to either party or more generally do not delay proceedings in which orders were made.

1      Greendrake v District Court of New Zealand [2020] NZCA 122.

[6]I am not prepared to grant Ms Davis leave to appeal for the following reasons:

(a)I am not prohibited from exercising the powers of an Associate Judge of the High Court;

(b)there is no basis for the assertion that I am incapable of dealing impartially with proceedings in which Ms Davis is a party;

(c)there is no arguable error of law in my decision to refuse Ms Davis’s application for directions as to service; and

(d)the proposed appeal is both unmeritorious and frivolous.

Result

[7]The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

O G Paulsen Associate Judge