Underlying challenge at High Court involves medical care of children
In a judicial review proceeding arising from an applicant’s challenge against matters regarding the medical care of her children, the New Zealand Supreme Court found no breach of its procedural rules and no plain abuse of its process.
The case was M (SC 58-2026) [2026] NZSC 134. Before the New Zealand High Court, the applicant brought the judicial review proceeding against the respondents. The High Court struck out the proceeding before service for lack of a reasonably arguable cause of action.
The applicant appealed. Since filing that appeal, the applicant thrice applied for security for costs, requested two extensions of time to file the case on appeal, and sought the review of registrar decisions refusing to extend the time to pay security for costs.
The applicant’s filings exceeded the relevant page limits.
In striking out the appeal, the New Zealand Court of Appeal pointed to a continuing pattern of non-compliance with procedural directions and the delay in prosecuting the appeal.
The appeal court explained that the notice of appeal repeated previously made arguments regarding the subject systems, rather than asserting real errors in the High Court ruling.
Before the Supreme Court, the applicant applied for leave to appeal. She alleged that the appeal court erroneously struck out her appeal because the deficiencies were remediable.
The registrar accepted the 43-page notice of application for filing. However, under s 164A of the Senior Courts Act 2016, the registrar referred the proceeding to a single judge of the Supreme Court because it appeared to plainly abuse the court’s process.
According to the registrar, the proceeding continued the pattern of excessive documentation before the lower courts and failed to raise any real error in the appeal court judgment apart from assailing its factual findings.
The Supreme Court did not require additional submissions to fairly decide whether the proceeding plainly abused its process.
Considering the currently available materials, the Supreme Court noted that the applicant filed a 43-page notice of application and separately applied to stay the lower courts’ cost awards, attaching a memorandum and an affidavit with lengthy exhibits.
The Supreme Court ordered the registrar to set a timetable for submissions and draw the applicant’s attention to the relevant procedural rules, including the rule for the number of pages. The court saw a coherent fundamental basis for the proposed appeal.
First, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the applicant’s challenge against the appeal court’s factual findings might be relevant to the leave panel’s determination. However, the Supreme Court did not consider this factual challenge enough to find the proceeding abusive.
Second, the Supreme Court accepted that the notice of application was unusually lengthy. However, the court did not consider the length a legitimate basis to find the proceeding abusive.
Here are some other recent Supreme Court of New Zealand decisions revolving around family matters.
In upholding a refusal to extend the time for an applicant to file leave applications in a family matter, the Supreme Court made a 14 August 2026 decision acknowledging his legal training and “familiarity with civil procedure,” as seen in his applications before the High Court of New Zealand and Court of Appeal of New Zealand.
In proceedings involving separated parties, the Supreme Court issued a 10 June 2026 ruling denying leave to appeal against a decision to issue an order under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act, which the respondent sought to restrain the applicant from commencing or continuing civil proceedings against her.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
