Dunstan v Manukau District Court

[2023] NZHC 3020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-001376

[2023] NZHC 3020

BETWEEN

TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN

Plaintiff

AND

MANUKAU DISTRICT COURT

First Defendant

CHRISTINA RIDDELL
Second Defendant

ANITA ELLIS
Third Defendant

ALLAN NIXON

Fourth Defendant

Cont’d

Hearing:

14 August 2023

Appearances:

T F Dunstan in Person

Y Mortimer-Wang as Counsel assisting the Court

Judgment:

30 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF ANDERSON J

(Leave to appeal – access to transcript)

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 October 2023 at 3.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

……………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Crown Law, Wellington

DUNSTAN v MANUKAU DISTRICT COURT [2023] NZHC 3020 [30 October 2023]

JOHN DUDLEY NEILL

Fifth Defendant

CAROL MARGARET MONTAGUE NEILL

Sixth Defendant

KAREN ALLEN
Seventh Defendant

CIV-2023-404-00520

BETWEEN  TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN

Applicant

AND  AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT

First Defendant

JOHN DUDLEY NEILL
Second Defendant

CAROL MARGARET MONTAGUE NEILL

Third Defendant

[1]                 On 6 October 2023, I declined Ms Dunstan’s request for a transcript of the hearing of her judicial review of two District Court decisions.1 Ms Dunstan seeks leave to appeal this decision to the Court of Appeal. She says “it is not for the High Court to challenge the ‘good reason’ of [Mallon J’s] precedent case for transparency over privilege to release a transcript”.

[2]                 Applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal are governed by s 56 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. Palmer J summarised the test applicable under s 56 as:2

… an application to appeal an interlocutory decision under s 56(3) is likely to be granted if:

(a)the appeal is not likely to be overtaken by the substantive hearing or cannot otherwise be considered as effectively in the context of an appeal of the substantive decision; or

(b)the appellant is likely to be prejudiced by a postponement to the substantive appeal; or

(c)the appeal may be dispositive of the case in law or as a practical matter; and

(d)the arguments in the appeal are capable of bona fide and serious argument; and

(e)the issue on appeal concerns a decision of sufficient significance to the parties or a question of law or general principle of sufficient importance as to outweigh the cost and delay of the appeal.

[3]                 I do not consider that Ms Dunstan’s application raises any argument of bona fide and serious argument. Nor does it raise any issue or question of law on the proposed appeal of sufficient importance so as to outweigh the cost of appeal. The law on the provision  of  transcripts  is  settled.  My  minute  applied  that  law  to  Ms Dunstan’s application. Ms Dunstan provided no good reason to direct the preparation of a transcript. Nor does she raise any further matters here that would support leave to appeal.

1      Dunstan v Manukau District Court HC Auckland CIV-2022-404-1376, 6 October 2023.

2      Li v Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2018] NZHC 1171, [2018] NZAR 1134 at [21].

[4]Ms Dunstan’s application for leave to appeal is declined.

Anderson J