Dunstan v Manukau District Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-1626

[2024] NZHC 2274

UNDER New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Senior Courts Act 2016

BETWEEN

TANYA DUNSTAN

Plaintiff

AND

MANUKAU DISTRICT COURT

Respondent

Hearing: on the papers

Representation:

plaintiff self-represented

Judgment:

14 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF JOHNSTONE J

(application for recall)

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 August 2024 at 10 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

DUNSTAN v MANUKAU DISTRICT COURT [2024] NZHC 2274 [14 August 2024]

[1] By means of a document dated 7 August 2024, Tanya Dunstan applies for recall of my judgment dated 6 August 2024. My judgment refused her leave to bring proceedings seeking review of a Family Court Registrar’s 24 December 2018 decision to decline to accept her application in that Court for a temporary protection order. Ms Dunstan required leave to bring such proceedings because she is the subject of an order under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, restricting her from bringing proceedings in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court and in the District Court (including the Family Court) without first obtaining leave of a Judge of this Court.1

[2]Ms Dunstan submits that:

(a)I made an obvious error of law, treating her 17 June 2024 document filed with the Manukau Family Court as an application. Ms Dunstan argues that her 10 July 2024 application to this Court sought only to have the Family Court attend to her 17 June 2024 document. As she was not bringing “an application” in the Family Court, my judgment declining her leave is “manifestly unjust”.

(b)It is not appropriate that I should preside as a High Court Judge until she is provided with “letters from the chief High Court Judge and Supreme court judge (sic)” condoning my holding of a certain company directorship.

[3]Addressing these submissions in turn:

(a)There is no doubt Ms Dunstan proposes bringing a proceeding in the Family Court. The fact Ms Dunstan applied for leave from this Court speaks for itself.

(b)I do not hold the directorship of which Ms Dunstan complains, nor any other directorship. She has mistaken me for another person with the same name.

1 Dunstan v Manukau District Court [2024] NZHC 2188.

[4]Ms Dunstan’s recall application is dismissed.

Johnstone J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dunstan v Manukau District Court concerns Tanya Dunstan's application for recall of a judgment delivered by Johnstone J on 6 August 2024. Dunstan, who is subject to a restriction order under section 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, sought leave to challenge a Family Court decision in the High Court. The judgment in question denied her leave to bring such a challenge, and she now appeals this decision. The primary legal issue before the court was whether there were grounds for recalling the earlier judgment based on the arguments presented by Dunstan.

Dunstan raised two main arguments for recalling the judgment. Firstly, she argued that the judge had made an error of law by treating a document she filed with the Family Court as an application. She contended that her 10 July 2024 application to the High Court sought only to have the Family Court review her earlier document, and thus, she was not actually bringing an application in the Family Court. Secondly, she argued that it was inappropriate for the judge to preside over her case without having letters of condonation from the chief High Court Judge and the Supreme Court judge regarding a directorship that she believed the judge held. The court addressed these arguments, noting that Dunstan's application to the High Court clearly indicated her intention to bring a proceeding in the Family Court, refuting her first claim. The court also clarified that Johnstone J did not hold the directorship in question, as Dunstan had mistakenly confused him with another person.

In dismissing the recall application, the court held that Dunstan's arguments did not provide sufficient grounds for recalling the earlier judgment. The judge's decision to deny leave to bring the Family Court challenge remained firm. The court found no manifest injustice in its original judgment and thus denied the recall application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	on the papers
Representation:	plaintiff self-represented
Judgment:	14 August 2024