Genet v Attorney-General [2014] NZHC 1606 (9 July 2014)

Last Updated: 10 December 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-001686 [2014] NZHC 1606

BETWEEN	MARTINE MARY FRANCES GENET Plaintiff/Applicant
AND	THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ORS Proposed Defendants

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Judgment:	9 July 2014

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J DECLINING LEAVE TO ISSUE PROCEEDINGS

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 July 2014 at 4.45 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High

_{Court Rules.}

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date...............

Solicitors: Crown Law Office, Wellington

Copy to: Plaintiff/Applicant

GENET v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ORS [2014] NZHC 1606 [9 July 2014]

[1] Martine Genet attempted to file a document referred to as a statement of claim in the Auckland Registry of the High Court on 24 June. The Registrar referred the document to me for direction as he considered it failed to comply with the provisions of the High Court Rules in a number of respects.

[2] I minuted the file as follows:

The document is entirely deficient. It fails to comply with a number of rules. It is to be returned to the applicant Ms Genet. Any similar documents presented by Ms Genet are only to be accepted for filing with leave of a Judge.

25/6/14

[3] I made the administrative direction that any similar documents were only to be filed with leave of a Judge in reliance on the Court’s inherent jurisdiction¹ to control its own processes, including to restrain frivolous and vexatious litigation.

[4] Ms Genet has now filed an application for leave accompanied by a notice of proceeding and statement of claim (attached). She has addressed one defect which was the failure to file a notice of proceeding.

[5] The claim Ms Genet now seeks leave to file is directed against the Attorney- General, the Prime Minister (both the office and personally), a member of the Prime Minister’s Wellington staff, the Prime Minister’s Electoral Office, the Minister of Social Development (both the office and personally), the Minister’s staff (in both her electorate and Wellington offices), the Associate Minister of Social Development (both the office and personally), the Associate Minister’s staff, Head Office of the Ministry of Social Development, former CEOs of the Ministry of Social Development, current CEO of the Ministry of Social Development, members of the Remote Client Unit of the Ministry of Social Development, the Auckland Regional Office of the Ministry of Social Development, and the Otara office staff from 2009.

[6] On that basis alone, the proposed statement of claim is defective as vexatious and is not to be accepted. The genesis of the claim appears to arise out of Ms Genet’s dealings with the Ministry of Social Development. If the proceedings

otherwise disclosed a cause of action they should be brought against the Minister of Social Development and the Chief Executive of the Department: s 14(2) Crown Proceedings Act 1950.

[7] There are however other fundamental defects. It appears at the heart of the proposed claim is an allegation Ms Genet has not received benefits which she was entitled to. As a consequence she has sustained loss. She also alleges her file with the Ministry has been purged. She alleges an offence under s 258 of the Crimes Act

1961.

[8] The claim is however entirely deficient in its present form. The proposed claim does not comply with the High Court Rules. The rules prescribe standards a statement of claim must meet. The purpose is to ensure proper defendants are cited, and that the defendants and Court are reasonably informed of the case being brought. The requirements, which are basic, must be complied with to enable the defendants to fairly respond to the allegations made and to ensure the scarce resources of the Court are not wasted, thereby depriving genuine litigants of their right of access to the Court.

[9] I highlight the following difficulties:

(a) The allegation of a breach of s 258 of the Crimes Act is an allegation of a criminal offence. It has no place in a civil claim of the nature proposed by Ms Genet.

(b) Ms Genet purports to rely on a verbal agreement. No particulars are given of that verbal agreement as to date or time. Insufficient particulars are provided of the parties and the nature of the agreement.²

(c) To the extent the claim alleges her request for review of the decision process from February 2009 to the present was ignored, a review process is provided under the provisions of the Social Security Act

1964. Decisions of the Chief Executive (made under delegation by other decision makers) may be reviewed under s 10A of the Social Security Act. A right of appeal lies from such decisions to the appeal authority under s 12J. An appeal to this Court lies on a question of law, but only on a question of law under s 12Q.

(d) To the extent that there may be a reviewable decision there are insufficient particulars of any decision identified in the pleadings.

(e) The relief claimed is not available. It appears Ms Genet seeks some form of declaratory order requiring the defendants to “keep their agreements” and seeks a sum of $800,000. There is no apparent basis for such relief.³

[10] For the above reasons the application for leave to file the proceedings is declined.

Venning J