Christensen v Attorney-General - [2020] NZHC 1872

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 1872

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 or 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: 17 July 2020

Appearances:

Plaintiff appeared in Person

E Jamieson and A Lawson for Defendant

Judgment:

17 July 2020

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Strike out application)

[1] This is an application by the Crown to strike-out the proceedings in this matter. It is the second application to strike out which has been made. The statement of claim which has twice been amended is dated 23 March 2020.1

1 This decision was delivered orally on 17 July 2020. The written form has been edited and footnoted before distribution.

CHRISTENSEN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 1872 [17 July 2020]

[2] Mr Christensen is passionately concerned about the future of humanity given the catastrophic likely effects of climate change. Mr Christensen has a theory about its causes based on what he refers to as “the Electricity School”. This is in opposition to the other theory which he refers to as “the Emission School”. The latter is the generally accepted theory behind climate change. Mr Christensen considers that it is his duty to try and promote his theory. He says the science behind the emission school theory is “poisoned science”. He seeks the platform of this Court in these proceedings to explore and prove that the Electricity School theory is the correct one.

[3] In his statement of claim Mr Christensen summarises the two schools. He notes they provide contrasting prescriptions. Mr Christensen then refers to the advent of the tidal turbines at Saint Malo, France in 1966 which marked, he says, a time before which no appreciable problem in climate had occurred. He goes on to say that the trends that have caused modern outcries have only appeared since the consequent unmitigated draw, by the tidal turbines, on the gravitational potential of roughly 200 megawatts.

[4] Mr Christensen brings his claim against the Attorney-General in public nuisance as well as in negligence. The remedies he seeks are in damages. He says he has been denied the opportunity to work in an ordinary fashion by the burden he has assumed on behalf of the community. That burden, he says, came about by his decision that he had a global emergency to attend to. So he quit his full time employment to concentrate on this matter.

[5] Mr Christensen seeks damages in the sum of $250,000. He indicates that these may be awarded on the condition that the money be gifted to a trust (or some alternative condition). He also seeks damages in relation to his own personal financial toll. He calculates this amounts…

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 1872
Decision Date: 17 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the plaintiff, Russell Zelany Christensen, brought proceedings against the Attorney-General in public nuisance and negligence. The plaintiff's claim was based on his theory that the cause of climate change is the draw on gravitational potential by tidal turbines rather than greenhouse gas emissions. The plaintiff alleged that his decision to quit his full-time employment to concentrate on this matter was a burden that should have been taken on by the nation state. He sought damages of $250,000 for the financial losses he had suffered due to his decision to dedicate his time to the cause. The Crown brought an application to strike out the claim on the basis that the pleadings did not disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action, were likely to cause delay, and were an abuse of process. The Court found that the claims were clearly untenable and that the pleadings were prolix and almost incomprehensible. The Court held that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the public nuisance claim and that the claim in negligence was not properly pleaded. Accordingly, the Court struck out the claims on the basis that they were an abuse of process and likely to cause prejudice and delay. The Court also noted that it was not the venue for promoting the plaintiff's theory on the cause of climate change. The Crown was given three days to make its application for costs, and the plaintiff was required to respond by 7 August 2020. If the parties could agree on costs, the Court was to be advised.

Orders