Reekie v Harrison [2014] NZHC 2162 (9 September 2014)

Last Updated: 11 September 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-2234 [2014] NZHC 2162

BETWEEN	NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE Applicant
AND	JUDGE G M HARRISON Firs Respondent DR MHAIRI DUFF Second Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	9 September 2014

_{JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J}

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 September 2014 at 4.30 p.m., pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

_{Date: ...............................}

REEKIE v JUDGE G M HARRISON [2014] NZHC 2162 [9 September 2014]

[1] Mr Reekie is currently imprisoned and seeks a judicial review of Judge Harrison’s decision in the District Court. A hand-written statement of claim was filed with the High Court. The Registrar returned the filed documents to Mr Reekie on the grounds that the contents was not typed and that the Notice of Proceedings was not signed. Mr Reekie then filed an interlocutory application for review of the Registrar’s refusal to file a document tendered for filing, pursuant to r 2.11(1)(c) of the High Court Rules. This application is also hand-written, and is the subject of this judgment.

[2] Rule 5.4 of the High Court Rules states:

5.4 Contents to be typed, etc

(1) The contents of each document must be legible and clearly typewritten, printed, or produced in permanent form by photocopying.

(2) Despite subclause (1), handwriting may be used for the date of the document.

(3) Subclause (1) does not apply to the signature on a document.

[3] In respect of the Notice of Proceedings, the original filed by Mr Reekie was not signed. Mr Reekie has since filed a new, signed Notice of Proceedings. The only question for determination is whether the Registrar was wrong to refuse to file Mr Reekie’s statement of claim for judicial review solely because it was hand- written rather than typed on a computer.

_{[4] Mr Reekie seeks relief. Rule 5.2(1) provides:}

	5.2	Non-complying documents
	(1)	A document that does not comply with rules 5.3 to 5.16 may be received for filing only by leave of a Judge or the Registrar.
[5]	Mr	Reekie’s documents are written neatly and legibly, and can be

photocopied or scanned so they can be stored in permanent form. They meet the purpose of r 5.4.

[6] Mr Reekie was is unable to produce typed documents. He is currently imprisoned and has no access to a computer. The prison where he is serving his sentence does not provide computers.

[7] It would be unfair to Mr Reekie to deny him an application for judicial review solely because of such external circumstances. His situation is similar to the one in Toia v Prison Manager,¹ a judgment of this court released earlier this year. There a prisoner also sought judicial review with a hand-written application. The prison did have computers, however prison staff did not let him type the application because they were told earlier by the Auckland High Court that the Court would

accept hand-written documents. The hand-written application for judicial review was accepted without any concerns from the Court and the case proceeded as normal.

[8] Mr Reekie’s application is successful. The Registrar is to accept Mr Reekie’s

hand-written statement of claim for judicial review, and any other hand-written documents Mr Reekie may need to file in the future.

¹ Toia v Prison Manager [2014] NZHC 867.