C v Accident Compensation Corporation - [2022] NZHC 2923

INTERIM SUPPRESSION ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OF THE PLAINTIFF AND SECOND DEFENDANT.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CIV-2021-070-749

[2022] NZHC 2923

UNDER the Defamation Act 1992, the Accident Compensation Act 2001, ss 171 and 172 of the Crown Entities Act 2004, and the Contractual Remedies Act 1979

BETWEEN

C

Plaintiff

AND

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

First Defendant

N
Second Defendant

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Third Defendant

Hearing: 7 November 2022

Counsel:

R W Ord for Plaintiff

I G Hunt and M E Gall for First and Second Defendants
S Conway, K Stephens, and V Howell for Third Defendant

Judgment:

8 November 2022

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[Strike out application]

[1] Before the Court is an application by the first and second defendants to strike out the plaintiff’s fifth amended statement of claim.

C v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2022] NZHC 2923 [8 November 2022]

[2] The plaintiff, who I will refer to as C, has filed proceedings against the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), N (an ACC staff member), and the Attorney-General. The plaintiff’s claim is made against the defendants in defamation, misfeasance in public office, negligence, breaches of fiduciary duty, and breaches of privacy.

[3] ACC and N (collectively ‘the applicants’) seek to strike out the fifth amended statement of claim on the basis that:

(a)it does not disclose any reasonably arguable cause of action against them;

(b)the causes of action pleaded are not founded on separate and distinct facts, nor are they stated separately or clearly, and their factual basis is difficult if not impossible to discern;

(c)the pleading is diffuse and prolix, with extensive irrelevant and evidential material pleaded, argumentative, and includes matters that are speculative and/or of submission.

[4] The applicants say that as the plaintiff has already filed five amended statements of claim, there is no realistic prospect that the pleadings are capable of being rehabilitated.

[5] The Attorney-General has also filed an application for strike out, in relation to the “alternative fourth cause of action…which alleges the Attorney-General is vicariously liable for the alleged misfeasance in public office by the ACC”. The Attorney-General submits that the allegations are clearly untenable and disclose no reasonably arguable cause of action.

[6]The plaintiff opposes the strike out applications.

[7] For the reasons below, I am of the view that the applications for strike out of the fifth amended statement of claim, should be allowed.

Factual background

[8] C is a 60-year-old ACC claimant. She has two claims with ACC dating from the 1980s. One of those claims is a claim relating to physical injuries arising from a motorcycle accident. The other is a sensitive claim as a result of serious sexual assaults. C’s interactions with ACC since the 1980s have been somewhat strained, with various disputes about cover and acceptance of claims. The fifth amended statement of claim records that as a result of these issues, C formed the belief that ACC and N were biased against her.

[9]…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read C v Accident Compensation Corporation and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NZHC 2923
Decision Date: 8 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, C, filed proceedings against the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), an ACC staff member, N, and the Attorney-General. The plaintiff's claim is made against the defendants in defamation, misfeasance in public office, negligence, breaches of fiduciary duty, and breaches of privacy. ACC and N (the applicants) sought to strike out the plaintiff’s fifth amended statement of claim on the basis that it did not disclose any reasonably arguable cause of action, the causes of action were not founded on separate and distinct facts, nor were they stated separately or clearly, and their factual basis was difficult if not impossible to discern. The applicants said that as the plaintiff had already filed five amended statements of claim, there was no realistic prospect that the pleadings were capable of being rehabilitated. The Attorney-General also filed an application for strike out in relation to the plaintiff’s alternative fourth cause of action. The plaintiff opposed the strike out applications. For the reasons below, the Court found that the applications for strike out should be allowed. The Court found that the fifth amended iteration of the plaintiff’s statement of claim discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action. The Court found that the plaintiff’s claims were defective in a number of ways, and ample opportunity had been provided to the plaintiff to effect reasonable amendments. The Court also found that the plaintiff’s cause of action in defamation was time-barred. The Court struck out the plaintiff’s fifth amended statement of claim in its entirety.

Orders