Clayton v Currie - [2015] NZHC 1044

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2011-409-001178 [2015] NZHC 1044

BETWEEN
VINCENT JAMES CLAYTON

First Plaintiff

AND

LINDA JOYCE WESTBURY Second Plaintiff

AND

PHILIPPA ANNE CURRIE First Defendant

AND

RAYMOND DONNELLY & CO Second Defendant

AND

THE CROWN SOLICITOR AT CHRISTCHURCH

Third Defendant

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Fourth Defendant

CIV-2013-409-001441

BETWEEN PETER LLOYD MACHIRUS First Plaintiff

ANDNADIA MAVANA PELENATO Second Plaintiff

ANDGARY GEORGE MORRELL Third Plaintiff

ANDPHILIPPA ANNE CURRIE First Defendant

ANDRAYMOND DONNELLY & CO Second Defendant

ANDTHE CROWN SOLICITOR AT CHRISTCHURCH
Third Defendant

ANDTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Fourth Defendant

CLAYTON v CURRIE [2015] NZHC 1044 [18 May 2015]

Hearing: 15 May 2015

Appearances:

Plaintiffs all in person

P N Allan for Second Plaintt (L J Westbury) J C Pike QC and S Barr for Defendants

Judgment:

18 May 2015

RULING OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] One of the issues which arose for consideration at the case management conference on 15 May 2015 was whether the proceedings in Clayton and Ors v Currie and Ors, CIV-2011-409-1178 (“the Clayton proceedings”), should be heard together with the proceedings in the Machirus and Ors v Currie and Ors CIV-2013-409-1441 (“the Machirus proceedings”).

[2] The defendants have sought an order that the proceedings be heard together as is provided for under High Court r 10.12. The reasons for seeking joinder of the two proceedings are as follows:

(a) Both sets of proceedings turn on the alleged consequences of the first defendant providing a letter to the plaintiffs, during the course of a trial against the plaintiffs, which gave incomplete information about the sentencing indication given to a co-accused, L, who was giving evidence in the plaintiffs’ trial, as a Crown witness. That incident lead to the convictions which were obtained against the plaintiffs being successfully appealed and the Crown elected not to proceed with another trial. The plaintiffs’ claims both rely on those circumstances as giving rise to their claims and that common factual background requiring common evidence to be given is said by the defendants to point to joinder of the proceedings being appropriate.

(b)Furthermore, it is clear that there is commonality in the causes of actions pleaded. In the Clayton proceedings there is a claim for

Baigent damages under s 25(a), (e) and (f) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. There is a parallel claim in the Machirus proceedings. In the Clayton proceedings the tort of deceit was pursued, although that has been struck-out. It also pleaded in the Machirus proceedings. Both causes of action plead the tort of misfeasance in the Public Office. The only obvious departure in the pleadings is that in the Machirus claim, the third plaintiff pleads malicious prosecution. The defendants argue that the commonality of causes of action make it both more efficient to hear the matters together, and eliminates the risk of inconsistent findings on issues which arise out of the same factual background.

(c) The defendants also point to the fact that both proceedings claim damages for loss of businesses. In the Machirus…

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 Clayton v Currie

Details

AGLC: Clayton v Currie [2015] NZHC 1044
Case: [2015] NZHC 1044
Decision Date: 18 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Clayton and Others v Currie and Others, the High Court considered whether two sets of proceedings should be heard together. The plaintiffs in both cases were individuals who had been convicted in criminal proceedings but later had their convictions overturned on appeal. They sought damages from the Crown and others for their wrongful convictions. The court considered whether the proceedings should be consolidated due to the commonality of the factual background and the legal issues. The defendants argued that consolidation would be more efficient and would avoid the risk of inconsistent findings. The plaintiffs in one set of proceedings argued that consolidation would delay the resolution of their case and increase costs. The court found that consolidation was appropriate and directed that the proceedings be heard together, with the exception that counsel for one plaintiff would be excused from attending parts of the hearing that related to damages claims not relevant to his client. This decision ensures that the court's resources are used efficiently and avoids the risk of inconsistent findings.

Orders