Edwards v Wellington Regional Council HC Wellington CIV 2010-485-2192

[2011] NZHC 385

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2010-485-2192

BETWEEN  J A EDWARDS Plaintiff

ANDWELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL Defendant

Hearing:         On Papers

Counsel:         Plaintiff in Person

J W Tizard for Defendant

Judgment:      25 March 2011

COSTS JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J

[1]      In a judgment dated 11 March 2011 I stayed these proceedings.   I said that Mr Edwards would require the leave of a Judge to file any further statement of claim in these proceedings.  That was so because I concluded that Mr Edwards’ statement of claim did not contain any of the fundamental requirements of a statement of claim.  I set out my reasons in that judgment.

[2]      The  defendant,  Wellington  Regional  Council,  now  seek  costs  on   its application to strike out the statement of claim on a 2B basis which would be $6,768.

[3]      Mr Edwards  filed  submissions  in  response  to  the  application  for  costs. Mr Edwards’ opposes costs.

[4]      The  defendant’s  case  is  that  the  proceedings  were  “misconceived  at  the outset”.    Immediately after the proceedings  were filed and  served  the  Regional Council’s  solicitors  wrote  to  Mr Edwards  pointing  out  the  limitations  of  his statement of claim.  The letter detailed what the Regional Council said were a series

of inadequacies.   The Council said that if Mr Edwards decided to discontinue his

J A EDWARDS V WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL HC WN CIV 2010-485-2192 25 March 2011

claim in view of the difficulties identified, it would not seek costs. They advised that if Mr Edwards decided to proceed, however, they would seek costs on any strike out application.

[5]      The matter first came became me on 6 December.  Mr Tizard appeared for the defendant  and  Mr Edwards  representing  himself.    Mr Edwards  then  told  me  he wished to file an amended statement of claim.  The Regional Council had already applied to strike out the claim.  I, therefore, ordered Mr Edwards to file a statement of claim by 13 December.  Then the Regional Council could file its submissions in support of their application to strike out.   Timetabling for submissions was then made.

[6]      I note that Mr Edwards says he has never received that minute.  That may be so but Mr Edwards was well aware of the contents of the minute when I discussed it with him on 6 December.

[7]      At the next hearing on 23 February 2011 Mr Edwards told me he did not want to file an amended statement of claim.   Both he and Mr Tizard had filed submissions on the Council’s application.  In those circumstances it hardly mattered that Mr Edwards had not received the December minute.

[8]      On 23 February I discussed with Mr Edwards the problem with his statement of claim.  I told him that the current statement of claim did not identify relevant legal and factual issues, causes of actions or proper prayers for relief.

[9]      I released a minute on 24 February 2011.  In part it said:

[5]       I advised Mr Edwards that I was prepared to give him one further and final opportunity to see if he could draft a statement of claim which was coherent and to which the defendant could be asked to respond and from which it could identify what it was being sued for.  Mr Edwards agreed to an adjournment of the strike out application to give him the opportunity to redraft his statement of claim.

[6]       I reiterate  my  advice  to  Mr Edwards  that  based  on  his  previous statement of claim and the subsequent memorandum filed by him that I considered it was unlikely, given the potential complexity of the issues, that as a lay person he would be able to redraft a coherent statement of claim.

[7]       Mr Edwards will therefore have until 5.00 p.m., 9 March 2011 to file and serve on the defendant an amended statement of claim.   I will then consider whether or not the defendant should be required to plead or respond in any other way to the statement of claim.  If the statement of claim does not comply with the basic rules of pleading and remains incomprehensible then  I  have  advised  Mr Edwards  that  I  would  be  likely  to  stay  the proceedings.  If I consider the statement of claim is sufficiently coherent to require a response then Mr Tizard will need to decide whether he wishes to pursue his application to strike out.  If so, a further fixture of perhaps two hours will be required.

[10]     On 28 February 2011 Mr Edwards filed an amended statement of claim.  In my judgment of 11 March 2011 I concluded that Mr Edwards’ amended statement of claim  did  not  identify  any  of  the  “fundamental  requirements  of  a  statement  of claim”.

[11]     I then said:

[12]      I have considered whether I should now strike out these proceedings. I consider the better course is, in my inherent jurisdiction, to stay these proceedings.  I do this on the basis that it is currently impossible to know whether Mr Edwards does have a valid claim.  I could not currently rule out that possibility remote as it may seem.  This is not, however, an invitation to Mr Edwards to continue to file such statements of claim.

[13]      As I pointed out to Mr Edwards, while he may have engineering skills, he does not have the legal skills to draft a claim especially given the potential complexity of the factual and legal issues.   It seems highly improbable that as a lay person he would be able to draft a statement of claim sufficiently coherent that the respondent should be asked to respond to it.

[12]     And:

[9]       The statement of claim can be summarised as identifying work done by the Regional Council, Mr Edwards’ view that this work is wrong and should not be done and a claim that some of the decisions of the Council may be “unauthorised or invalid” and asking for decisions which I might find to be unauthorised or invalid be set aside.   There is no identification which decisions were either “unauthorised or invalid” or on what basis.

[13]     The Regional Council is entitled to costs.  While I have not yet struck out Mr Edwards’  pleadings  that  is  because,  as  I  have  identified,  it  is  difficult  to understand exactly what his claim is.  In fairness to him it seemed appropriate that I stayed the proceedings until he could identify the essential ingredients of a legal claim against the Wellington Regional Council.  I have bent over backwards to try

and provide Mr Edwards with the opportunity of identifying a proper claim based on a proper legal and factual basis.

[14]     Mr Edwards’ response to the application for costs is firstly to attempt to reargue why my decision to order a stay was wrong.  As to costs, Mr Edwards says he has “no sensation of having failed” and that although the Regional Council sought to strike out his statement of claim, that has not been successful.

[15]     For the reasons given, I am satisfied an order for costs is appropriate.  I order

2B costs in favour of Wellington Regional Council.  Mr Edwards has not disputed the quantum of the claim itself.  Accordingly, the defendant will have costs against

the plaintiff for the sum of $6,768 plus disbursements as authorised by the Registrar.

Solicitors:

J A Edwards, 59 Penrose Street, Lower Hutt

J W Tizard, Oakley Moran, PO Box 241, Wellington

Ronald Young J