Slavich v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

[2013] NZHC 2338

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-4604 [2013] NZHC 2338

IN THE MATTER OF AND

IN THE MATTER OF

s 4 of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 an application for judicial review

BETWEEN

JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH Applicant

AND

JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER

First Respondent

DOUGLAS WHITE, TERENCE ARNOLD, JOHN RICHARD WILD, SUSAN GWYNFA MARY GLAZEBROOK AND PAMELA JEAN ANDREWS

Second Respondents

CIV-2012-404-3604

BETWEEN

JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH Applicant

AND

LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER

First Respondent

MEGAN BALL Second Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	Applicant in person P J Gunn for first and second respondents
Judgment:	9 September 2013

JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2013] NZHC 2338 [9 September

2013]

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 September 2013 at 4 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

[1]      In these proceedings Mr Slavich has filed three applications asking the Court to recall or set aside its earlier decisions.  The Registrar has rejected all three applications on the basis that Mr Slavich requires the leave of the Court to file the applications.  The Registrar based his decision on the fact that, in a judgment delivered on 27 March 2013, a Full Court of this Court granted an application by the Attorney-General to have Mr Slavich declared a vexatious litigant.1   In so doing, the Court directed that no civil proceeding Mr Slavich had instituted in any Court in any capacity was to be continued by him without the leave of the Court.2

[2]      Mr Slavich now applies for review of the Registrar’s decision.

Decision

[3]      Both these proceedings were in existence as at 27 March 2013.  Mr Slavich commenced CIV-2010-404-3604 on 4 June 2010.   He commenced CIV-2012-404-

4604 on 8 August 2012.  As a consequence, the direction contained in the judgment of the Full Court applies to both proceedings.  Mr Slavich is prevented from taking any further steps in either proceeding unless he first obtains the leave of the Court.

[4]      Mr Slavich has not applied for leave to file the interlocutory application in CIV-2010-404-3604.  For that reason the Registrar was correct to refuse to receive his interlocutory application in that proceeding.   The Registrar’s decision is accordingly confirmed, and the documents that Mr Slavich attempted to file in that proceeding are to be returned to him forthwith.

[5]      Mr Slavich applied for leave to continue CIV-2012-404-4604.  In a decision delivered on 9 April 2013, Cooper J dismissed that application.3   As a consequence, it is no longer open to Mr Slavich to file any further documents in that proceeding. For this reason the Registrar was also correct to decline to accept the documents that

Mr Slavich attempted to file in that proceeding.

1      Attorney-General v Slavich [2013] NZHC 627.

2      Ibid, at [179](b).

3      Slavich v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2013] NZHC 693.

Result

[6]      The application to review the Registrar’s decision is accordingly dismissed.

Lang J

Solicitors:

Crown Law, Wellington

Copy to:

Applicant