Edwards v District Court, Dunedin

[2013] NZHC 571

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CIV2013-412-000001 [2013] NZHC 571

BETWEEN  JOHN ANTHONY EDWARDS Applicant

ANDTHE DISTRICT COURT, DUNEDIN First Respondent

ANDTHE DISTRICT COURT, OAMARU Second Respondent

ANDWAITAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL Third Respondent

Hearing:         (On Papers)

Counsel:         P Gunn and E Devine for First and Second Respondents

P G Hope for Third Respondent

Judgment:      25 March 2013

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

[1]      Mr  Edwards  has  made  application  to  judicially  review  (it  appears)  two decisions of the District Court, namely a decision entering judgment against him in favour of the third respondent and a further decision declining to grant him leave to appeal out of time.  I say “appears” because the exact relief sought by Mr Edwards is not specified.  I think the short point is that he considers that the proceedings in the District Court have been managed in a procedurally unfair manner and to his detriment.

[2]      Mr Edwards had the Waitaki District Council joined as a third respondent and has now sought leave to cross-examine, I understand, a representative of the third

respondent.

EDWARDS V THE DISTRICT COURT, DUNEDIN HC DUN CIV 2013-412-000001 [25 March 2013]

[3]      Normally judicial  review proceedings  are dealt  with  by way of  affidavit evidence filed by the parties.  It is unusual for cross-examination to occur.  This is because judicial review proceedings involve errors of law, failure to have regard to relevant considerations, regard to irrelevant considerations, procedural unfairness or unreasonableness.   Any such error should be obvious from the relevant decision. There may be cases, though rare, where cross-examination might elucidate on whether, for example, an irrelevant consideration was taken into account.

[4]      Having reviewed the pleadings, I can see no basis for cross-examination of the third respondent.  The decisions of the District Court, not the third respondent, are under review primarily for alleged procedural unfairness.  Nothing I have seen in the affidavit evidence filed by Mr Edwards or other documentation lodged by him attaches that procedural unfairness caused by the third respondent.   Cross- examination therefore would serve no useful purpose and I can see no reason to depart from the norm.

[5]      This application has also made it plain to me that the proceedings need to be put on a proper footing.  I direct that the first and third respondent are to confer with a view to reaching agreement on the key issues that must be resolved at the judicial review hearings.  Points of agreement and disagreement are to be recorded in a joint memorandum and filed in the Court no less than three working days prior to the hearing.

[6]      I am also going to convene a telephone conference for Thursday, 28 March, at 11.00 am, for the purpose of confirming timetabling to a hearing.

Solicitors:

Crown Law Office, Wellington:  [email protected]

Hope & Associates Legal, Oamaru:  [email protected]

cc: Applicant  [email protected]