No basis found to interfere in Family Court’s ruling on motherhood claim
New Zealand’s Supreme Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s judgment upholding the High Court’s decision striking out a proceeding seeking to correct a birth certificate, which the Family Court deemed abusive of process.
In P v Wellington Family Court [2025] NZSC 201, the applicant (P) filed an application before the Family Court to correct his birth certificate. P claimed that the mother (C) and the father named on his birth certificate were not his biological parents.
P argued that C – who was allegedly involved in baby-farming organised by eugenicists, in which P faced hypnotic coercion – seriously abused him. P requested orders directing the registrar-general to:
C acknowledged that the birth register did not correctly record the identity of P’s father. However, she provided evidence confirming that she was P’s mother.
The Family Court struck out P’s application to correct his birth certificate and suppressed the publication of reports of the proceeding without leave under s 11B(3)(b)(ii) of the Family Court Act 1980, as C was a vulnerable person under s 11D(i) of the Family Court Act.
The Family Court found that:
P applied for judicial review of the Family Court decision. McHerron J of the High Court struck out P’s judicial review application.
The High Court judge described the statement of claim’s contents as discursive, lurid in detail, and far-fetched. The judge also maintained the suppression order in connection with the proceeding relating to C.
Regarding P’s claim concerning C, the High Court judge accepted that the claim met the threshold for strike-out. However, the judge did not deem it appropriate to entirely strike out the proceeding, as C and P had agreed that the birth certificate incorrectly stated P’s father, and technical difficulties had prevented P from participating in the Family Court hearing.
Instead, the High Court judge stayed the proceeding and gave P a month to replead, only on the issue of the father and without the discursive material regarding C. If P did not do so, the judge said the High Court would strike out the statement of claim without further notice.
Rather than repleading, P instead appealed. He alleged that the High Court decision was procedurally improper, ultra vires, irrational, and infringing on his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision and affirmed that striking out the clearly abusive proceeding was justified.
P applied for leave to appeal the appeal court decision. P argued that the striking out and the permanent suppression of C’s identity were irrational, illegal, procedurally improper, and disproportionate. P sought:
The Supreme Court of New Zealand denied the relief sought and declined to order costs.
The Supreme Court saw:
Regarding P’s application to adduce further evidence and file an amended claim, the Supreme Court ruled that P’s proposed material repeated the allegations against C, elaborated on matters that his submissions had fully covered, and would not impact the outcome.
Regarding the directions requested by P, the Supreme Court pointed out that the Family Court could deal with that matter.
