Christensen v Attorney-General - [2020] NZHC 2047

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2019-485-707

[2020] NZHC 2047

IN THE MATTER of a civil proceeding of squaring-off

UNDER

the Crown Proceedings Act 1950, s 3(2)(3) and (6)

UNDER

the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 9 and 27(1) and the Health and Safety at

Work Act 2015, ss 44(4)(d) and the Resource Management Act 1991, s 6(a).

BETWEEN

RUSSELL ZELANY CHRISTENSEN

Plaintiff

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

Plaintiff in Person

E Jamieson and A Lawson for Defendant

Judgment:

13 August 2020

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Costs)

[1] The Attorney-General seeks costs following a successful strike out application of Mr Christensen’s proceedings.

[2] Mr Christensen is committed to battling climate change. In particular he seeks to persuade the science community and the New Zealand government that the climate theory that is widely accepted as being behind climate change based on emissions is not correct. Mr Christensen is of the view that the real cause is in the “Electricity School” not the “Emission School”.

CHRISTENSEN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 2047 [13 August 2020]

[3] The “Emission School”-based theories, Mr Christensen says, are based on “poisoned science”. He seeks to debate the substantive issues and the merits behind the various theories. He has not been able to gain traction in other forums and therefore wishes to use this Court as the platform for that debate.

[4] Mr Christensen has given up his job to devote all his time to promoting the Electricity School. He is concerned that if he does not do it no one will and the world will suffer severely from climate change.

[5] The proceedings, which were struck out, were an attempt by Mr Christensen to bring the debate, which he sees between the Electricity School (he promotes) and the Emissions School (which is widely accepted in the scientific community) to the fore.

[6] Mr Christensen pleaded his claim in public nuisance and negligence. I found that there was no cause of action disclosed in the proceedings and they were an abuse of process. Mr Christensen had been given an earlier opportunity to amend the proceedings and he had done so but the amendments did not assist in providing a cause of action, nor did they remedy the other defects in the proceedings which are set out in my judgment.1

[7] Mr Christensen in his submissions against costs promotes the merits of his view in relation to climate change. He says that the Court has not considered the merits of his arguments and that while his case was from “left field” he reasonably believed that there were grounds for him to believe:

… that, in aiming to save souls, the Court would initially construe the talk quite broadly …

(5.1) The plaintiff reasonably believed that whether or not the Court finally decided that a tort had been committed, he would nevertheless convince the Judge in the case that there is no…

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 Christensen v Attorney-General 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: [2020] NZHC 2047
Decision Date: 13 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the plaintiff, Russell Zelany Christensen, sought to challenge the widely accepted scientific theory behind climate change, which attributes the phenomenon to emissions, by promoting an alternative theory known as the "Electricity School." The Attorney-General, as the defendant, opposed the claim and ultimately succeeded in having the proceedings struck out. The court was then required to decide whether the Attorney-General was entitled to costs for successfully defending against what was deemed an abuse of process. The primary legal issue was whether the proceedings were brought in the public interest, a requirement for the defendant to be exempt from paying costs under the relevant rule.

The court held that the proceedings did not meet the criteria for being in the public interest as they lacked merit and were struck out entirely. While climate change is a matter of public interest, the court found itself ill-equipped to resolve the scientific debate underpinning the plaintiff's claim. The court also noted that the plaintiff's belief in the merits of his arguments did not provide a basis to depart from the usual rule that the successful party is entitled to costs. The Attorney-General submitted that there were no grounds to refuse or reduce the order for costs, as the proceeding did not concern a matter of genuine public interest, had no merit, and was not of general importance beyond the interests of the unsuccessful litigant. The court agreed and found that the defendant was entitled to costs on a category 2B basis, awarding the sum of $10,994 as claimed in the schedule attached to the Attorney-General's submissions.

The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the costs of the proceeding to the Attorney-General in the sum of $10,994. The court found that the plaintiff's belief in the merits of his arguments did not provide a basis to depart from the usual rule that the successful party is entitled to costs. The court also found that the proceeding did not meet the criteria for being in the public interest, as it lacked merit and was struck out entirely. The court held that the Attorney-General was entitled to costs on a category 2B basis, as claimed in the schedule attached to the Attorney-General's submissions.

Orders