Adamson v Attorney-General - [2023] NZHC 3809

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2023-485-244

[2024] NZHC 3809

UNDER the Fair Trading Act 1986, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, Tort of Professional Negligence and the Crimes Act 1961

BETWEEN

IAN ADAMSON

First Plaintiff

KATE JONES
Second Plaintiff

AND

MELANIE BAKER

Defendant

CIV-2023-485-381

UNDER

the Fair Trading Act 1986, the New Zealand Bills of Rights Act 1990, Tort of Professional Negligence and the Crimes Act 1961

BETWEEN

IAN ADAMSON

First Plaintiff

KATE JONES
Second Plaintiff

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

Defendant

Hearing: 18 December 2023

Appearances:

Plaintiffs in person Defendants excused

Judgment:

20 December 2023

ADAMSON v BAKER [2024] NZHC 3809 [20 December 2023]

Reissued: 27 February 2024

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 December 2023 at 11:00 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Parties / Solicitors:
The Plaintiffs The Defendants
Ms D Harris and Ms A Vincent, Crown Law, Wellington

Introduction

[1] Mr Adamson and his daughter Ms Jones, have filed two separate sets of proceedings which are described as “Statement of Claim for Tort of Professional Negligence”.

[2] The first in time of these is CIV-2023-485-381. The statement of claim is dated 28 March 2023. It purports to bring a claim of professional negligence, said to amount to a perversion of the course of justice, against an employee (the former Deputy Registrar) of the Lower Hutt District Court. An amended statement of claim was filed on 15 December 2023.

[3] The second proceeding, CIV-2023-485-224, was filed on 17 April 2023. It is brought against Ms Baker, counsel for child in Family Court proceedings that the first and second plaintiffs were, and continue to be, involved in. It asserts that Ms Baker engaged in professional negligence as well as a number of other claims, including breaches of the Fair Trading Act 1986, fiduciary duties as a lawyer, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. An amended statement of claim was filed on 15 December 2023.

[4] Although the proceedings were first filed in March and April 2023, they were only brought on for hearing by teleconference on 10 November 2023. At the teleconference, and subsequently by minute dated 15 November 2023, I advised the parties that the proceedings appeared to disclose no reasonably arguable cause of action and may also be an abuse of the process of the Court.

[5] I set down both proceedings for a hearing for the purpose of determining whether either or both of them should be struck out pursuant to r 15.1 of the High Court Rules 2016. I directed that neither defendant was required to respond to the respective statement of claim nor attend or participate in the hearing.

[6] The Attorney-General has filed a memorandum in the CIV-381 proceedings, together with an interlocutory application on notice to strike out the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adamson v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Adamson v Attorney-General [2024] NZHC 3809
Case: [2023] NZHC 3809
Decision Date: 20 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ian Adamson and his daughter Kate Jones brought separate proceedings against two defendants, one being Melanie Baker, a lawyer involved in previous family court proceedings. The proceedings were struck out by Churchman J, who found that the claims were not only untenable but also amounted to an abuse of the Court's process. The Court considered whether the proceedings disclosed a reasonably arguable cause of action and whether they were an abuse of the Court's process. Churchman J held that the proceedings were a collateral attack on previous findings of the Family Court and the High Court, which is impermissible and an abuse of process. The claims were also found to be untenable as they conflated concepts of criminal liability with the tort of negligence, and the plaintiffs had not pleaded any actual damage or recognisable psychiatric illness.

The Court found that the proceedings should be struck out under r 15.1(1)(a) and (d) of the High Court Rules 2016. The Court also considered the issue of costs, with the Attorney-General seeking costs in respect of the filing of the strike out application in one of the proceedings. The plaintiffs were entitled to be heard before any costs award was made. Churchman J directed the Attorney-General to file a memorandum of no greater than two pages in length, and the plaintiffs would have 10 working days to file and serve a reply. Costs would then be dealt with on the papers. No order was made as to costs in the other proceeding as the defendant was not required to respond to the statement of claim.

Orders