Ruling affirms findings that claim is untenable, generalised, defective
In a judicial review proceeding against the Queenstown Family Court’s manager, the New Zealand Court of Appeal determined that granting the applicant’s request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal would not serve the overall interests of justice.
Before the High Court, the self-represented applicant in Baker v Manager of the Family Court at Queenstown [2026] NZCA 295 alleged that the Family Court Registry:
The High Court registrar referred the proceeding to Judge Osborne under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016 for consideration under r 5.35B.
Rather than immediately striking out the applicant’s statement of claim, Judge Osborne issued a 25 June 2025 decision that gave her an opportunity to amend the multiple fundamental deficiencies in her pleading, as well as guidance for the amended claim’s required contents.
Judge Osborne would strike out the amended claim if it were noncompliant or untimely. The applicant failed to appeal against the judge’s decision within 20 working days.
On 1 July 2025, Judge Black directed the applicant not to file anything electronically in the Queenstown court and permitted the Registry to block her email address.
Judge Black exercised the court’s inherent powers to prevent the abuse of its processes to stop the harassment of registry and management staff in the underlying Family Court proceedings through constant emails and telephone calls.
Under r 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, the applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal from Judge Osborne’s decision.
The New Zealand Court of Appeal declined an extension of time to file a notice of appeal upon determining that it would not serve the overall interests of justice.
The Court of Appeal identified the following factors that favoured issuing an extension:
However, the appeal court ruled that the appeal’s merits and the applicant’s conduct strongly outweighed these factors.
The Court of Appeal of New Zealand saw no prospects of success in the applicant’s appeal. The appeal court pointed out that she wanted to revive a proceeding that Judge Osborne correctly considered completely untenable, generalised, discursive, and defective.
The appeal court held that the judge could have struck the statement of claim, which:
The appeal court added that requiring the respondent to defend against the applicant’s claim would be manifestly unfair and would incur substantial costs, time, and resources.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
