Burchell v Singh - [2014] NZHC 1353

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-004550 [2014] NZHC 1353

BETWEEN
LLEWELLYN WILLIAM BURCHELL

and JOAN ROSLYN BURCHELL Plaintiffs

AND

SUKHMINDER SINGH Defendant

Hearing: 30 April 2014

Appearances:

L W Burchell (Self-represented, in Person)
for the Plaintiffs
J A McBride (together with S Singh, in Person)
for the Defendant
K Laurenson and C Scott for the New Zealand Police

Judgment:

17 June 2014

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J [re Strike-out Application]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Duffy on 17 June 2014 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Counsel: J A McBride, Auckland

Solicitors: Blank Singh and Associates, Auckland
Crown Law, Wellington

Copies To: L W Burchell, Auckland
New Zealand Police, North Shore, Auckland

BURCHELL v SINGH [2014] NZHC 1353 [17 June 2014]

[1] The defendant, Sukhminder Singh, applies to this Court to strike out the amended statement of claim of the plaintiffs, Llewellyn Burchell and his wife, Joan Burchell (“the Burchells”). The application is opposed.

[2] In the amended statement of claim, the Burchells allege that Mr Singh has defamed them and committed the tort of conspiracy against them.

[3] The genesis of this proceeding lies in a tenancy dispute that developed between Mr Singh and the Burchells. Mr Singh is one of the owners of a residential property at 2 Weldene Avenue, Glenfield. The property was let to the Burchells.

[4] Later, Mr Singh took steps to end the tenancy. Those steps included taking a proceeding before the Tenancy Tribunal. The Burchells opposed this proceeding. There was a hearing before the Tenancy Tribunal on 11 June 2013. In the course of that hearing, there was evidence that showed that on or about 28 April 2013, Mr Singh had made a statement to the New Zealand Police (“the police”) about either Mr Burchell or both him and his wife.

[5] The Burchells took exception to what was said in the statement made to the police. In their original statement of claim they alleged that the statement as read out to the Tenancy Tribunal was defamatory. Later they recognised that statements that were made before the Tenancy Tribunal are protected by absolute privilege as proceedings before that Tribunal are covered by s 14 of the Defamation Act 1992. They have amended their claim to place the focus of their complaint on the 28 April
2013 statement made to the police. Statements made to the police may be protected by qualified privilege but that is as far as the law of privilege will go to protect statements of that kind.

[6] Rule 15.1(1) of the High Court Rules empowers the Court to strike out all, or part of a pleading if it: (a) discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action; (b) is likely to cause prejudice or delay; (c) is frivolous or vexatious; or (d) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.

[7] The principles for the exercise of the power under r 15.1(1)(a)…

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 Burchell v Singh

Details

AGLC: Burchell v Singh [2014] NZHC 1353
Case: [2014] NZHC 1353
Decision Date: 17 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was presented with an application by Sukhminder Singh to strike out the amended statement of claim by Llewellyn Burchell and Joan Burchell, who are represented by Llewellyn Burchell in person. The plaintiffs seek redress against Mr Singh for allegedly defamatory statements made to the police and a claim for conspiracy. The genesis of this dispute lies in a tenancy dispute between the parties, which led to Mr Singh initiating proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal. The plaintiffs took exception to statements made by Mr Singh during the Tribunal hearing, which they claim were defamatory. The legal issues before the Court were whether the amended statement of claim disclosed a reasonably arguable cause of action, if it was likely to cause prejudice or delay, if it was frivolous or vexatious, and if it was an abuse of the Court's process. The Court held that the amended statement of claim qualified for striking out under the rules, as it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, was likely to cause prejudice or delay, and was frivolous and vexatious. The content of the allegedly defamatory statement was not expressly stated in the amended statement of claim, and the allegations made were scandalous, irrelevant, unintelligible, unnecessarily prolix, and largely comprised of evidential material. The Court found that the pleading was unintelligible, and the allegations did not fit into a framework for the tort of conspiracy. The Court emphasised that while lay litigants should be given some leeway, they must still conform with legal requirements. The Court struck out the amended statement of claim and awarded costs at category 2B, with the possibility of an increased award if Mr Singh files a memorandum within 15 days of the judgment delivery.

Orders