Finch v Quinovic Property Management Limited - [2021] NZHC 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2021-409-299

[2021] NZHC 2009

BETWEEN
PETER FINCH

Plaintiff

AND

QUINOVIC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED

Defendant

Appearances: P Finch (in person)

Judgment:

5 August 2021

(Determined on the papers)

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 August 2021 at 11.00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

FINCH v QUINOVIC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2009 [5 August 2021]

[1]Peter Finch has filed a number of documents as follows:

(a)a document called “Judicial Review”;

(b)a bundle of materials relating to a decision of the Tenancy Tribunal (Tribunal). This includes extracts from the decision with Mr Finch’s annotated criticisms or disagreements, further materials relating to that decision with similar annotations, extracts from legislation, and character references; and

(c)extracts from a judgment arising from Mr Finch’s appeal to the District Court against the Decision, with annotations recording Mr Finch’s criticisms or disagreements with that Judgment.

(together “the Proceeding”).

[2] The Registrar has referred these documents to me under rr 5.35A to 5.35C High Court Rules 2016 to determine if the proceeding should be struck out on the basis it is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court.

Background

[3]I summarise the background upon the basis of my reading of the documents.

[4] Mr Finch was a tenant at 43C Wharenui Rd, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch (the property). The property was managed by Quinovic Property Management Limited (Quinovic) on behalf of the property owner.

[5] Mr Finch brought a claim in the Tribunal relating to his tenancy. Quinovic cross-claimed.

[6] The Tribunal, in its decision dated 14 September 2020 (the First Tribunal Decision), found against Mr Finch on his claim (except as to a matter relating to a spa pool) and found for Quinovic on the counterclaim. The Tribunal ordered the termination of Mr Finch’s tenancy with immediate effect and ordered Mr Finch pay

$339.87 to Quinovic (being the balance owing by him after awards to both landlord and tenant were set off).

[7] Mr Finch appealed to the District Court. His appeal, set down for a day, came before Judge Crosbie on 14 April 2021.

[8] The Judge issued an oral judgment on the same day. He recorded that in his view, a day was not an adequate time allocation for the appeal and noted the material he was being asked to consider on the appeal was not well organised.1 Mr Finch disagrees with both those conclusions. The Judge said no copies of the materials had been made available to him – Mr Finch made a USB stick available to the Court that day, but the Judgment records that the Registrar advised the Court that there were some 1,700 JPEG documents which the Registry could not copy.2

[9] The Judge noted that during the hearing of the appeal, information was provided to the Court from the Christchurch City Council which both parties had the opportunity…

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 Finch v Quinovic Property Management Limited 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: [2021] NZHC 2009
Decision Date: 5 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Finch v Quinovic Property Management Limited, the plaintiff, Peter Finch, sought to challenge decisions made by the Tenancy Tribunal and the District Court in relation to his tenancy at a property managed by Quinovic Property Management Limited. The High Court was required to determine whether Finch's application was an abuse of the court process and should therefore be struck out. The court found that Finch's application did not disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action and amounted to an abuse of process. Finch's challenge was to the settlement reached with Quinovic and recorded in the District Court's decision, rather than the means by which the decision was reached. Judicial review is not the appropriate mechanism for setting aside a consent judgment. The court held that there was no prospect of a successful judicial review application and that the proceeding should be struck out. Finch was advised that he had the right to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal within 20 working days.

Orders