IN THE Supreme court OF new Zealand

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA	
 SC 104/2024
 [2024] NZSC 136	

	
BETWEEN	
PONSONBY CHAMBERS (ON BEHALF OF TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN)
Applicant	
	
AND	
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
First Respondent

MINISTER OF JUSTICE
Second Respondent

ANDREW KIBBLEWHITE
Third Respondent

Court:	
Glazebrook, Ellen France and Miller JJ	

Counsel:	
Applicant in person
No appearance for Respondents	

Judgment:	
9 October 2024	

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing the application for leave to appeal.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS
[1]	“Ponsonby Chambers” has sought to file an application for leave to appeal from a decision of Blanchard J in the High Court, seeking to bypass the Court of Appeal.  The Registrar has referred it to us for direction, having regard to apparent irregularities.
[2]	Ponsonby Chambers is not a barristers’ chambers.  It appears to be a reference to Ponsonby, a limited liability company owned and directed by Tanya Dunstan.  The application for leave to appeal is said to have been brought on behalf of “the appellant”, Ms Dunstan.  It appears to have been signed by “Mr X”, while the decision of Blanchard J records “M Rolls” as solicitor.  Melanie Rolls is a name used by Ms Dunstan.  She appears to have used it to file the High Court proceeding in which the decision she now wishes to appeal to this Court was made.
[3]	The application is a plain abuse of process.  Ms Dunstan is the subject of an order under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 and cannot bring a proceeding without first obtaining leave.  She cannot evade that order by the device of using Ponsonby Chambers to file the application on her behalf and what appears to be an alias.  She appears to have attempted to mislead the Registrar by doing so.
[4]	In these circumstances the Court will not consider the application for leave to appeal.  The Registrar is directed not to accept it for filing.