Burrows v Thomson - [2018] NZHC 2093

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CIV-2018-454-000030

[2018] NZHC 2093

BETWEEN
WAYNE JOHN BURROWS

Appellant

AND

AMY KATRINA THOMSON

Respondent

Hearing: 1 August 2018

Counsel;

Appellant in person D R Davies as amicus

Judgment:

15 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

[Appeal against dismissal of application for restraining order as an abuse of the procedure of the court]

PART I INTRODUCTION

The issue

[1] Mr Burrows appeals from a decision of Judge Smith in the District Court. The issue is as follows:

Did Judge Smith err when he dismissed an application for a restraining order against Ms Thomson sought by Mr Burrows under the Harassment Act 1997 (the Act)?

BURROWS v THOMSON [2018] NZHC 2093 [15 August 2018]

[2] Judge Smith dismissed Mr Burrows’ application because he considered it to be “frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of the procedure of the court”.1

[3] This judgment explains why I am dismissing Mr Burrows’ appeal. To assist in understanding my reasons, I shall first explain the background and then set out the relevant provisions of the Act. I shall then summarise Judge Smith’s decision and the grounds of appeal. Thereafter, I shall analyse the grounds of appeal before summarising my conclusions.

PART II

BACKGROUND

The relationship between Mr Burrows and Ms Thomson

[4] Mr Burrows met Ms Thomson at a bridge club in Palmerston North in 2008. Approximately 18 months after first meeting her, Mr Burrows invited Ms Thomson to play bridge with him. He says that over the next four to five years they developed an effective and successful bridge partnership.

[5] In late 2013, Ms Thomson left Palmerston North. She moved permanently to Wellington in early 2014. Prior to that, the parties’ relationship, which was never more than platonic, began to deteriorate. According to Mr Burrows, Ms Thomson failed to turn up for bridge practice sessions, cancelled her participation in tournaments and became “generally inconsiderate”. Mr Burrows says that he and Ms Thomson discussed what they expected of each other from their bridge partnership and friendship. He says Ms Thomson and he agreed they would maintain their bridge partnership and friendship.

[6] Mr Burrows says that when he contacted Ms Thomson in early March 2014, she behaved in a “most extraordinary manner”. He says that she made excuses about why they could not have bridge practice sessions or catch up. Mr Burrows says their relationship deteriorated into one that involved Ms Thomson verbally abusing him and engaging in “stonewalling”. Mr Burrows says that Ms Thomson also engaged in

1 Burrows v Thomson [2018] NZDC 5020; Harassment Act 1997, s 32.

“gaslighting”, a form of psychological manipulation that involved Ms Thomson pretending that previous discussions had never occurred or were quite different than what had happened.

Specified acts

[7] As is required by the Act, Mr Burrows identified in an affidavit the specified acts that he relied upon in support of his application for restraining orders. I…

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 Burrows v Thomson

Details

AGLC: Burrows v Thomson [2018] NZHC 2093
Case: [2018] NZHC 2093
Decision Date: 15 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Burrows v Thomson, the High Court was asked to consider whether the District Court judge was correct to dismiss an application for a restraining order made by Mr. Burrows against Ms. Thomson under the Harassment Act 1997. Mr. Burrows alleged that Ms. Thomson's conduct towards him constituted harassment. The District Court judge dismissed the application, finding it to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the court's procedure. Mr. Burrows appealed this decision to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the District Court judge that the application was an abuse of the court's procedure. The High Court found that while Mr. Burrows had suffered emotional distress due to the breakdown of his relationship with Ms. Thomson, the criteria for a specified act under the Harassment Act were not satisfied, as a reasonable person in his circumstances would not have feared for their safety. Additionally, there had been no contact between the parties since the incident in question, and Mr. Burrows' circumstances had since improved. The High Court concluded that the District Court judge was correct to dismiss the application as an abuse of the court's procedure, given the lack of merit in the claim and the potential for further harassment against Ms. Thomson.

Orders