Erwood v Holmes

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2004-404-7211

[2017] NZHC 2999

BETWEEN
ROBERT ERWOOD

Plaintiff

AND

JOHN ROBIN HOLMES

First Defendant

ANTHONY DAVID BANBROOK
Second Defendant

GRAEME EDWARD MINCHIN

Third Defendant

Hearing: (On the papers)

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person

Judgment:

5 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

ERWOOD v HOLMES & ORS [2017] NZHC 2999 [5 December 2017]

Copy to:
Plaintiff in person

[1] On 27 November 2017, Mr Erwood filed an application for review of a decision of Associate Judge Doogue made on 31 October 2017.1

[2] I am advised that Mr Erwood asked the registry for his application to be dealt with on an ex parte basis given its nature. The matter has been referred to me as Duty Judge.

[3] In his Minute of 31 October 2017, Associate Judge Doogue refused an application by Mr Erwood for the appointment of an Amicus Curiae to assist him with his litigation.

[4] This is not the first time Mr Erwood has applied for the appointment of an Amicus Curiae in this litigation:

·On 27 March 2017, Associate Judge Doogue refused an application.

·On 12 June 2017, Moore J refused Mr Erwood’s application to review Associate Judge Doogue’s decision.

·On 1 October 2017, Mr Erwood attempted to persuade Associate Judge Doogue to reconsider the appointment of an Amicus Curiae, on the grounds Mr Erwood’s medical condition was deteriorating.

·On 6 October 2017, Associate Judge Doogue issued a Minute declining to revisit his decision.

·On 13 October 2017, Mr Erwood sought informal review of Associate Judge Doogue’s decision not to reconsider the appointment of an Amicus Curiae.

1 Erwood v Holmes & Ors HC Auckland CIV-2004-404-7211, 31 October 2017 (Minute).

·On 26 October 2017, Venning J directed that informal application was insufficient.

·Mr Erwood then made a formal application which was rejected by Associate Judge Doogue on 31 October 2017.

[5] I have a clear view that the current application to review the decision of Associate Judge Doogue is an abuse of the process of this Court. It is frivolous and vexatious. It amounts to a naked attempt to relitigate matters which have been already litigated. Further, there is no merit at all to Mr Erwood’s underlying situation.

[6]The application is dismissed.

[7] I direct the registry, if Mr Erwood attempts to make further application for the appointment of an Amicus Curiae, to refer the matter to a Judge before accepting the application for registration.

Brewer J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Erwood v Holmes was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The plaintiff, Robert Erwood, sought to challenge a decision made by Associate Judge Doogue, who had previously refused Erwood's application for the appointment of an Amicus Curiae to assist him with his litigation. This was not the first time Erwood had sought such an appointment, and the matter had been extensively litigated. The court was required to decide whether Erwood's application for review of the decision constituted an abuse of process and whether there was any merit to his underlying situation.

The court found that Erwood's application was an abuse of the process of the Court and amounted to a naked attempt to relitigate matters that had already been decided. The court held that there was no merit to Erwood's underlying situation and dismissed the application. The court noted that Erwood's medical condition, which he claimed was deteriorating, had not been substantiated and did not justify the appointment of an Amicus Curiae. The court also held that Erwood's previous applications for an Amicus Curiae had been refused for good reason and that there was no reason to revisit the matter.

The court dismissed Erwood's application for review and directed the registry to refer any further applications for the appointment of an Amicus Curiae to a Judge before accepting the application for registration. The court held that Erwood's conduct in pursuing the matter was frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the Court's process. The court's decision was final and binding on the parties.

In light of the court's decision, Erwood's application for review was dismissed and no further applications for the appointment of an Amicus Curiae will be accepted without referral to a Judge. The court's decision brings to a close a lengthy and protracted litigation process that has caused significant delays and expense. The court's decision also serves as a warning to other litigants who may be tempted to abuse the Court's process in pursuit of their litigation objectives.

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)
Appearances:	Plaintiff in person
Judgment:	5 December 2017