Slavich v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

[2013] NZHC 693

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-4604 [2013] NZHC 693

IN THE MATTER OF     s 4 of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for judicial review

BETWEEN  JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH Applicant

ANDJUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER First Respondent

AND  CITED AS RESPONDENTS UNDER S

9(4) OF THE JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT 1972: PETER BLANCHARD AND OTHERS Second Respondents

CIV-2012-404-5936

AND IN THE MATTER OF s 4 of the Judicature Amendment Act

1972

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for judicial review

BETWEEN  JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH Applicant

ANDJUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER First Respondent

ANDCITED AS RESPONDENT UNDER S 9(4) OF THE JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT 1972: HELEN DIANA WINKELMANN

Second Respondent

Hearing:         On the Papers

Counsel:         Applicant in Person

P Gunn for First and Second Respondents

SLAVICH V JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER HC AK CIV-2012-404-4604 [9 April 2013]

Judgment:      9 April 2013

JUDGMENT OF COOPER J [Refusing leave to continue proceedings]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Cooper on

9 April 2013 at 12.00 p.m., pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

Solicitors:

Crown Law, PO Box 2858, Wellington 6140

Copy to:

John Kenneth Slavich, PO Box 120, Hamilton

[1]      Mr Slavich has applied for leave under s 88B of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 to continue with these proceedings.  The proceeding with the file number CIV-2012-404-4604 is the consolidation of eight proceedings previously commenced against the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, in which various Judges of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and the High Court were also named as the second respondents.   The further proceeding (CIV-2012-404-5936) is also against the Commissioner and  the Chief High  Court  Judge is  the second  respondent.   The proceedings were discussed extensively in the Full Court’s judgment of 27 March

2013, which resulted in an order being made against Mr Slavich under s 88B.

[2]      These proceedings were part of the Court’s reasoning in making a declaration against Mr Slavich under s 88B(1).  That is to say, the Full Court determined that the proceedings were vexatious and an abuse of process.

[3]      Mr Slavich purports to find a justification in the reasoning of the Full Court for continuing with the proceedings, but of course the reverse is the case.

[4]      The proceedings remain an abuse of process, and leave to continue them is refused.

[5]      The fixture set for 18 April is vacated.