Proposed proceedings also alleged negligence, false arrest, unlawful deregistration
New Zealand’s Supreme Court has dismissed an application for leave to appeal filed by an applicant who alleged negligence, false imprisonment, defamation as a conspiracy theorist, and unlawful deregistration in healthcare facilities against the Crown and its agencies.
In Bridge v R, [2025] NZSC 113, the applicant emailed proposed proceedings against “the Crown” to the Wellington High Court’s registrar.
The applicant asserted the following causes of action:
The registrar referred the matter to Justice Churchman of New Zealand’s High Court for consideration under r 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016 on the ground that the intended proceeding plainly abused the court’s process under r 5.35A.
Last February, Churchman struck out the proposed proceeding based on its failure to identify relevant defendants or respondents, allege viable causes of action, or claim any forms of relief the High Court could grant.
On appeal, the applicant cited the Magna Carta. She argued that she did not understand who “the Crown” was.
New Zealand’s Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The appeal court determined that the High Court judge used an orthodox analysis to conclude that the applicant’s claims were inadequate and irremediable.
The appeal court added that the applicant alleged no seriously arguable, non-trivial harm and made untenable claims.
The applicant applied for leave to appeal. She raised the constitutional question of who would hold Crown agents or the executive branch accountable for the state’s alleged harm to a citizen if every forum for relief was unavailable.
She requested a fair hearing and a lawful judgment. She alleged that the lower courts struck out her proceedings without hearing her claims’ substance, examining the evidence, or recognising the legal authorities submitted.
The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed the application for leave to appeal and made no cost order.
First, the Supreme Court acknowledged the sincerity of the applicant’s concerns. However, the Supreme Court deemed it unnecessary in the interests of justice to hear and determine the proposed appeal.
The Supreme Court saw:
