Filings sought to settle guardianship dispute and appoint new guardian
The New Zealand High Court has refused a request to bring three related applications under the Care of Children Act 2004 (COCA) before the Manukau Family Court, which the registrar had rejected for lacking the High Court’s leave.
In early June, the applicant in Dunstan v Manukau Family Court [2026] NZHC 1722 and J. Donellan purported to bring COCA applications seeking to:
The registrar did not accept the application for filing upon determining that the applicant:
The registrar directed the applicant to seek leave before filing legible documents.
The applicant applied for a review. On 10 June 2026, Judge G.J. Wagner issued directions to:
The applicant brought the present application.
Judge Powell of the High Court of New Zealand was unclear on whether the application:
If the former were true, Powell would find the application misconceived because the Family Court lacked jurisdiction under the s 166 order’s terms to approve the filing of a fresh COCA application without first obtaining the High Court’s leave.
Powell rejected the applicant’s argument that the 2024 decision of Judge Lang of the High Court suggested that leave was unnecessary due to the interlocutory nature of the applications pursued.
According to Powell, while Lang clarified that any leave allowing the applicant to commence a particular proceeding would broadly extend to interlocutory applications, Lang did not otherwise authorise the pursuit of fresh applications in already determined proceedings.
Next, Powell found the High Court’s leave necessary before the applicant could bring any fresh COCA applications, including interlocutory applications.
Setting aside the outcome of any appeal from the High Court, Powell described the Family Court’s parenting orders under the COCA, which the High Court affirmed, as final.
To the extent that the applicant sought leave to bring new applications alongside Donellan, Powell refused leave.
Even if a separate person appeared to assume carriage, Powell explained that these applications effectively constituted a collateral attack on otherwise final orders and thus amounted to an abuse of the court’s process.
Powell noted that the High Court had previously declined the appointment of an additional guardian in the children’s interests.
