Dunstan v Chief Executive, Oranga Tamariki

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-002009

[2023] NZHC 2499

BETWEEN
TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN

Applicant

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, ORANGA TAMARIKI

First Respondent

JOHN DUDLEY NEILL

Second Respondent

Hearing: (On the papers)

Judgment:

6 September 2023

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Review of Registrar’s decision

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 September 2023 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Copy to: Applicant

DUNSTAN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, ORANGA TAMARIKI [2023] NZHC 2499 [6 September 2023]

[1] The Registrar has referred this file to me as duty Judge. On 5 September 2023 the Deputy Registrar rejected documents presented to this Court by Ms Dunstan. He did so on the basis that the documents were not a compliant application for filing in the Auckland High Court.

[2]Ms Dunstan responded by an email requesting:

Please provide me with the judges directions refusing to accept or direct this URGENT application.

[3] Ms Dunstan followed that with a further email on 6 September 2023, concluding:

This application MUST be placed before a judge for an urgent decision (which should have happened 8 weeks ago).

[4] I treat Ms Dunstan’s email communications as an application to review the Registrar’s decision.

[5] I accept that r 2.11(1)(b), High Court Rules 2016 (HCR), applies in the present case.

[6] The Registrar refused to accept the documents presented by Ms Dunstan as they were non-compliant. In doing so the Registrar effectively made two decisions: firstly finding the documents to be non-compliant, and secondly, declining to exercise his discretion under r 5.2, HCR.

[7] I have reviewed the documents Ms Dunstan has purported to file. The documents are in the form of an application under the Care of Children Act 2004. On their face they refer to Part 5A, Care of Children Act 2004 and r 62A Family Court Rules 2002. They are in a format which apparently applies in the Family Court. The format and heading of the documents does not comply with rr 5.8–5.10 HCR. The Registrar was correct to consider the documents to be non-compliant.

[8] Further, I also accept the Registrar was correct not to exercise his discretion to accept the documents. Quite apart from their non-compliant form, there is the issue of jurisdiction. Section 125 of the Care of Children Act confirms that the purported

applications should be made in the Family Court. That is confirmed by the form of the document Ms Dunstan purported to file.

[9] The application to review the Registrar’s decision is dismissed. I confirm the Registrar’s decision not to accept documents from Ms Dunstan.

Venning J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the High Court involved Tanya Felicity Dunstan who sought judicial review of a decision by the Registrar of the Auckland Registry of the High Court to reject documents she submitted, deeming them non-compliant for filing. The case was reviewed by Venning J, who found that the documents in question, intended as an application under the Care of Children Act 2004, did not conform to the High Court Rules' requirements and thus were rightly considered non-compliant. Additionally, the Court had to address whether the Registrar had the discretion to accept the documents despite their non-compliance. The primary legal issues revolved around the proper format and content required for documents filed with the High Court, as well as the Registrar's discretion in accepting non-compliant documents.

Venning J examined the documents submitted by Ms. Dunstan, confirming that they adhered to the Family Court's format rather than the High Court's. The Court found that the documents did not meet the specific criteria outlined in rules 5.8 to 5.10 of the High Court Rules. Furthermore, the Court upheld the Registrar's decision not to exercise discretion under rule 5.2 of the High Court Rules to accept the documents, as their non-compliance and jurisdictional concerns pointed to the Family Court as the appropriate venue for such applications. The Court concluded that the Registrar was correct in both finding the documents non-compliant and in declining to accept them.

As a result, Venning J dismissed Ms. Dunstan's application for judicial review of the Registrar's decision. The judgment confirmed that the Registrar's decision to reject the non-compliant documents was justified, and the Court upheld the Registrar's authority to do so. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to specific procedural requirements and jurisdictional boundaries when filing legal documents in the High Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established