"On the face of it". . ."it appears" Osborne J has Conspired with Mander J to Fraudulently Conceal Judicial Misconduct and Obstruction of Justice.
The appellant, Ponsonby Chambers gives notice of an application to appeal to the Court Of Appeal against Justice Osbornes' dismissal of a review of registrars decision. The date of Osborne Js minute is dated 23 September 2024 and fraudulently conceals Justice Manders misconduct exploiting a registrar from Christchurch high court to “pretend” he was never provided the res judicata application. (Disproved with email communication from the registrar confirming this FACT.)
Errors of Law by Osborne J
1.????? Denies a company can be self-represented.
2.????? Falsely attempts to impose an s166 restraint on an entity- extra judicially.
Errors of Fact by Osborne J
1.????? Denies Justice Mander had received the application on 3/09/2024.
2.????? Denies an urgent memorandum re registry obstruction dated 17 September 2024 was filed, only stating the second effort on 20/09/ 2024.
3.????? Fraudulently conceals the s166 restraint is under appeal and he was a judge on the panel on appeal 16/05/2024.
4.????? Fraudulently conceals Justice Mander is another judge on the panel of the s166 appeal 16/05/2024.
5.????? Fails to identify apparent bias and ACTUAL conflict of interest pertaining to the s166 restraint- imposed unlawfully without a hearing on errors of law, by Brewer J.
The Court of Appeal should grant the appeal because it is a matter of public interest and credibility of the reputation of justice in New Zealand for these matters to be addressed in accordance with the law and what is just and fair. Particularly section 18 AND section 27 of the NZBORA 1990.
The judgment the appellant seeks from the Court of Appeal, is:
1. Quashing the dismissal of the proceedings as a miscarriage of justice and a rehearing by way of appeal to review the evidence and facts before the court and the legislation ALL judges in New Zealand are statutorily bound by.
2. Determine the res judicata matter before the court on an established point of law regarding DC disregarding s26 CPA 2011 in chambers as an obvious point of law DC judges continue to breach, rendering the courts “not competent jurisdictions.” And direct the criminal prosecution MUST be accepted in accordance with s15 CPA 2011.
3. The relief sought in the original statement of claim with reasonable compensation and damages for the ongoing delay, distress and further filing this obstruction of justice has resulted in. [At the usual costs for any professional for band B proceedings]
4. Any admonishment the court deems appropriate considering the conduct of the registrar, Sheena Spiers and two judicial officers (Mander and Osborne) BOTH on the panel of an s166 appeal against Ms Dunstan heard on 16 May 2024 NOT LEGALLY EXTENDING TO ANY ENTITY DUE TO THE RESTRICTION OF THE ACT-SCA 2016 s166-s169. Likely referral to the Attorney General; for a discussion panel.
5. ?Supported by the progressive judgement of justice Cliffords ruling against Judge Malosi in Hager vs Attorney general [2015]
6. A declaration Justice Osborne erred in his decision as there is no legal capacity for an s166 restraint to be imposed on an entity:
166 Judge may make order restricting commencement or continuation of proceeding
(1)? A Judge of the High Court may make an order restricting a person from commencing or continuing a civil proceeding.
6. The appellant relies on the following affidavit(s) and documents in support of the application for leave:
a) Decision of Osborne J dated 23 Sep 2024
b) Urgent memorandum re registry obstruction dated 17 September 2024
c) Formal “review memorandum” to overcome registrar obstruction filed 20 Sep 2024
d) JR NOP
e) JR Statement of Claim dated 2 September 2024
f) Affidavit in support of JR Statement of Claim dated 2 September 2024
g) Authorities pertaining to costs AND disbursements for lay litigants [Deliu and Dunstan]
It is apparent Justice Osborne has gone above and beyond to prevent natural justice, falsely alleging in para [6] “On 12 September 2024, the Registry responded, stating the Registry was unable to accept the proceeding for filing.” - fraudulently concealing Justice Manders misconduct in receiving the JR on 3 September 2024.
领英推荐
[19] of his decision:
“Had “Ponsonby Chambers Limited” been named as applicant, the Registry could not without leave of the Court accept the documents for filing as the documents are required to be filed by a solicitor on behalf of the company.”
Clearly disproved with: Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006
27 Exceptions to sections 21, 22, 24, and 26
(1)
Sections 21 ,?22 ,?24 , and?26 ?do not prevent—
(a) any person from representing himself or herself in proceedings before any court or tribunal; or
(b) any person from appearing as an advocate, or representing any other person before any court or tribunal if the appearance or representation is allowed or required—
(i) by?any legislation; or
(ii) by the court or tribunal; or
(c) any person who may, in accordance with paragraph (b), appear in any proceedings as an advocate or representative from—
(i) giving advice in relation to those proceedings; or
(ii) giving assistance in drafting, settling, or revising documents for filing in those proceedings.
(2) Sections 21 ,?24 , and?26 ?do not prevent any person who works in a community law centre or who is employed by a community law centre from giving to a person who is or intends to be a litigant in person in any proceedings—
(a) advice in relation to those proceedings; or
(b) assistance in drafting, settling, or revising documents for filing in those proceedings.
Regarding companies and other corporates, section 57(2) of the District Courts Act 1947 provides “A corporation may appear by any officer, attorney or agent of the corporation”.
Ergo, directors and employees may represent their corporates in the District Court in accordance with that section.
There is no equivalent District Courts Act 1947 right of audience provision in the Judicature Act 1908 or High Court Rules. In Re G J Mannix Ltd [1984] 1 NZLR 309 (CA) the Court of Appeal found the general rule is that a corporation has no right to be represented in legal proceedings other than by a barrister or solicitor. However, exceptions may be made. Per Justice Cooke in Re G J Mannix Ltd, at page 314 of the New Zealand Law Report:
In general, and without attempting to work out any hard and fast rules, discretionary audience should be regarded, in my opinion, as a reserve or occasional expedient, for use primarily in emergency situations when counsel is not available or in straightforward matters where the assistance of counsel is not needed by the Court or where it would be unduly technical or burdensome to insist on counsel. Especially in minor matters, cost-saving could also be a relevant factor. A “one-man” company might be allowed to be represented by its owner if the Judge saw fit in a particular case. But it could not be right, for instance, to issue some sort of tacit continuing or general licence to an unqualified agent to appear in winding up or any other class of proceedings.
Justice McMullin said, at page 316 of Re G J Mannix Ltd as reported in the law report:
Individual cases can be met, as they have been met in the past, by the exercise of a discretion to allow representation by company officers, or possibly agents, in the particular circumstances of the case: O’Toole v Scott [1965] AC 939; Hubbard Association of Scientologists International v Anderson. I would hesitate to place any fetter on the exercise of this discretion, leaving it for the exercise of the individual Judge. The nature of the litigation, the complexities of the case, the extent of the dispute and the points upon which audience is sought are some of the matters that may then be relevant. But representation of that kind is likely to be the exception rather than the rule.
Justice Sommers said, at page 316 of that same law report:
… I consider the superior Courts have a residual discretion in this matter arising from the inherent power to regulate their own proceedings. Cases will arise where the due administration of justice may require some relaxation of the general rule. Their occurrence is likely to be rare, their circumstances exceptional or at least unusual, and their content modest. Such cases can confidently be left to the good sense of the Judges.
Justice Osbornes AND Justice Manders refusal to accept filing of Ponsonby Chambers is breach of the precedent decision of the Supreme Court accepting Ponsonby Chambers as a self representing entity in SC104/2024 ON 16 SEPTEMBER 2024.
*The appellant is not legally aided.
A note for the courts to be reminded of their responsibility to uphold natural law, common law and human rights: by: LOUISE GREY” NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART: THE RIGHT TO SELF-REPRESENTATION IN NEW ZEALAND”
“Our civil justice system is naturally flawed; injustices are somewhat inevitable. It is time to accept the self-representation phenomenon for what it is: a symptom of an affordability crisis within the right of access to justice. The right to self-representation must continue to command respect and relevance in New Zealand. After all, any of us might one day require civil justice, and it should be our right to decide whether to pursue a claim through a legal representative or engage with the system ourselves.”