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

[2011] NZHC 195

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:      10 March 2011

JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J

Introduction

[1]      I refer to my minute of 24 February 2011.   In that minute I said that the statement of claim filed by Mr Edwards “could not truly be considered a statement of claim”.   It did not identify relevant legal and factual issues and the causes of actions and the prayers for relief seem to have no obvious relationship to the rest of the document.  I said:

The statement of claim was essentially a monologue detailing Mr Edwards’s concerns about the Wellington Regional Council’s policy and actions with respect to water in the region.

[2]      I advised Mr Edwards that I would 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”.

J A EDWARDS V WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL HC WN CIV 2010-485-2192 10 March 2011

[3]      Mr Edwards agreed to an adjournment of the strike out application so that he could redraft his statement of claim.  I told him then I thought it was unlikely as a lay person he would be able to adequately redraft.  I strongly encouraged him to consult a  lawyer  to  see  if  a  cause  of  action  and  a  claim  could  be  identified.    I  gave Mr Edwards until 9 March 2011 to file and serve such an amended statement of claim.   My minute noted that if any amended claim was of similar quality to the existing claim I would be likely to stay the proceedings.

[4]      On 28 February 2011 Mr Edwards’s filed an amended statement of claim. Unfortunately the statement of claim filed does not address the issues I raised with Mr Edwards.

[5]      In his statement of claim Mr Edwards identifies some of the obligations of the Wellington Regional Council to provide water to the region.  He says that he has complained of their actions over the last few years.  Mr Edwards formed the view that the actions of the Wellington Regional Authority relating to water supply capital works, was seriously defective.   He submitted formal objections to the Regional Authority’s annual plans but these were rejected.  He says that the integrity of the water enterprises by the Regional Council is at risk and that the water supply to the cities covered by the Regional Authority “could be lost entirely as a result of one or two, even quite moderate natural or technical events”.  He outlines what he believes are the deficiencies with respect to each of the plans by the Regional Council.

[6]      He then says under the heading “Cause of Action”:

Decisions, some of which may be unauthorised or invalid which have given rise to these claim threats to regional water supplies, affect or may affect the rights and privileges of the respondent along with 338,000 others to receive the benefit of the public water supply.

[7]      He then sets out his prayer for relief in this way:

[7]       The applicant therefore prays that the Honourable Court makes the following determinations:

that any decision by the respondent found to be unauthorised or invalid be set aside;

that in respect of all other acts or omissions by the respondent which the applicant claims to be defective, the respondent be directed to reconsider publicly the whole of the matters;

that as a matter of urgency and immediacy the respondent by interim order  be  directed  to  desist  from  further  work  on  raising  the TeMarua Lakes until the substantive use of the caller known.

[8]      Regretfully and perhaps predictably this amended statement of claim did not cure the defects identified in the previous statement of claim.   This amended statement of claim does not comply with the basic requirements of pleading.

[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.

[10]     Mr Edwards seems to consider that because he disagrees with decisions made by the Regional Council relating to water supply then these decisions are unauthorised or invalid.  His disagreement with the decisions does not make them either unauthorised or invalid.

[11]     I am satisfied Mr Edwards pleading does not identify any of the fundamental requirements of a statement of claim.

[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.

[14]     For  the  reasons  given,  therefore,  I  order  a  stay  of  these  proceedings. Mr Edwards will require the leave of a Judge to file any further statement of claim in these proceedings.  This will ensure that until a statement of claim is drafted which contains the fundamentals of adequate pleading the Regional Council are not called upon to respond.

Costs

[15]     Should the respondent seek costs it should file a memorandum within 14 days and Mr Edwards in response, a further 14 days.

Ronald Young J

Solicitors:

J A Edwards, 59 Penrose Street, Lower Hutt
J W Tizard, Oakley Moran, PO Box 241, Wellington