Dunstan v North Shore District Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-1815

[2024] NZHC 2203

BETWEEN
TANYA DUNSTAN

Applicant

AND

NORTH SHORE DISTRICT COURT

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Judgment:

7 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on application for leave to file judicial review proceeding]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 7 August 2024 at 1.00 pm
Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Copy to:
Ms T Dunstan

DUNSTAN v NORTH SHORE DISTRICT COURT [2024] NZHC 2203 [7 August 2024]

[1] Ms Dunstan has filed an application seeking leave under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 to commence an application for judicial review. She requires leave because this Court has made a general order restraining Ms Dunstan from commencing or continuing civil proceedings in this Court without first obtaining leave of a Judge of this Court.1 The order remains in force for a period of three years from 10 November 2023.2

[2] Ms Dunstan seeks leave to file an application for judicial review of a decision purportedly made by Judge G A Rea in the District Court at North Shore on 18 July 2024. The decision that Ms Dunstan seeks to review is said to be found in the following paragraphs of a minute issued by Judge Rea in proceedings in which Ms Dunstan has sought to prosecute several individuals:

[4] I am aware that Ms Dunstan has endeavoured to prosecute some of the Proposed Defendants for conspiracy offences on past occasions. In assessing whether any of the current proposed Charging Documents are an abuse of process it is necessary for me to obtain further information about any previous occasions when Ms Dunstan has endeavoured to prosecute eight Proposed Defendants named in these Charging Documents.

[5] She must know and have records of who she has prosecuted and who she has commenced any civil proceedings against. In determining whether any of the Charging Documents I have to consider are an abuse of process I need that information from her.

[6] Accordingly as part of the evidence I require to have before me in making a decision under s 26(3)(b) I direct that the informant, Ms Dunstan, provide the Court with the following:

(a) Copies of any proposed Charging Documents that she has filed, attempted to file or provided to any Court in New Zealand relating to any of the eight Proposed Defendants in this case…

[3] I am satisfied that leave should not be granted. It is plain from the face of the Judge’s Minute that he was not making any decision. Rather, he was seeking further information from Ms Dunstan that he believed he required in order to make a decision. There is therefore no jurisdiction for the Court to review the directions made by the Judge in his minute.

1 Re Dunstan [2023] NZHC 3176 at 15.
2 At [16].

[4]The application for leave to issue judicial review proceedings is declined.

Lang J

Ms Tanya Dunstan has applied for leave to bring a judicial review of a decision made by Judge G A Rea in the North Shore District Court. The application was heard and dismissed by Justice Lang of the High Court. Ms Dunstan, who had previously been restrained from filing civil proceedings without leave, sought to challenge a decision by Judge Rea in proceedings where she attempted to prosecute several individuals. She argued that Judge Rea's request for information about her previous prosecutions was a reviewable decision. Justice Lang held that Judge Rea had not made a decision at all, but rather was seeking information to enable him to make a decision in the future. As there was no decision to review, the application for leave to commence judicial review was dismissed.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the directions made by Judge Rea in his minute constituted a decision that could be subject to judicial review. Ms Dunstan argued that the directions required her to provide information and thus amounted to a decision. However, Justice Lang found that Judge Rea was not making a decision but was instead seeking information necessary to make a decision in the future. The judge concluded that there was no decision to review at that time, and thus the application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings should be dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established