Fuller v Patel - [2024] NZHC 1866

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-1506

[2024] NZHC 1866

BETWEEN
PETER FULLER

Plaintiff

AND

SONNEY PATEL

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Representation:

Plaintiff self-represented

Judgment:

9 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

[Ruling under Rule 5.35A]

This judgment was delivered by me on 09 July 2024 at 4 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………….

FULLER v PATEL [2024] NZHC 1866 [9 July 2024]

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff, Peter Fuller, has brought proceedings seeking damages totalling over $1 million particularised as “trespass breaches” ($40,000), “expenses and countless hours of time consume (sic)” ($12,000), and “tort for past and continual misconduct” ($1 million).

[2] He claims that from mid-2021 until now, the New Zealand Police have waged “a campaign of intimidation against my person” using the Eagle helicopter to effectively harass him, mostly at night.

[3] He has brought his concerns to the attention of the Waikātere Area Controller, Sonny Patel, who is cited as the defendant in these proceedings. According to Mr Fuller, when challenged about the Eagle helicopter overflying Mr Fuller’s homes, Mr Patel provided a “generic excuse” that the Police were pursuing someone involved in a burglary. Mr Fuller says that at no time was ground Police support observed pursuing any offenders.

[4] It would appear that Mr Fuller, in an attempt to avoid further aerial intrusions by the Eagle helicopter, moved to another address. However, within three days, Mr Fuller claims the helicopter “resumed its previous pattern of appearance at my new address and no longer visited my previous address.”

[5] As a result, Mr Fuller says that he created “a tailormade trespass notice to the “New Zealand Police Corporation” specifically addressing the “Eagle Helicopter crew”. He also claims he personally served a trespass notice on the Police and the Eagle Helicopter flight crew which included the air zone above his address.

[6] He says that within a week of issuing the trespass notice the helicopter “flagrantly violated [the trespass notices] by hovering directly above [his] … address on five separate occasions in a single day.”

[7] Mr Fuller also attaches to his statement of claim a series of exhibits one of which is an aerial map purporting to show the flight path of the Eagle helicopter on

specified occasions. He also annexes various documents which purport to be trespass notices addressed to the Police.

[8]The last paragraph of Mr Fuller’s statement of claim reads:

[19] This campaign of harassment commenced the same day I challenged jurisdiction in the Waitakere District Court and successfully had a conviction and dismissal of 25 outstanding community work hours that I refused to complete on the grounds of learning and understanding my inalienable human rights under God’s law being Common Law.

[9] The file has been referred to me by the Registrar under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016.

Applicable rules

[10] Proceedings referred by the Registrar under r…

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 Fuller v Patel 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: [2024] NZHC 1866
Decision Date: 9 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Peter Fuller, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against Sonny Patel, the defendant, seeking damages amounting to over $1 million. The plaintiff claims that from mid-2021, the New Zealand Police, under the direction of the defendant, have been conducting a campaign of harassment against him through the use of an Eagle helicopter. Fuller alleges that the helicopter has been flying over his residences, mostly at night, and that despite his complaints and attempts to serve trespass notices, the harassment has continued. The defendant, Sonny Patel, is named as the Area Controller of the Waikātere Area and is accused of providing a generic excuse for the helicopter's presence, claiming it was in pursuit of someone involved in a burglary, although no ground Police support was observed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proceedings brought by Mr Fuller were an abuse of the court's process. The court considered whether Mr Fuller had set out a valid legal cause of action and if the proceedings were brought against the correct defendant. The court found that Mr Fuller's statement of claim was difficult to follow, did not set out a valid legal cause of action, and had numerous irregularities. The court concluded that the proceedings were an abuse of process because they were vexatious and meritless, and because the correct defendant was not named. The court struck out the proceedings under Rule 5.35B of the High Court Rules and informed Mr Fuller of his right to appeal.

The court further found that the defendant, Sonny Patel, was not the appropriate party to be sued and that the correct defendant should have been the Attorney-General, sued on behalf of the Police, in compliance with section 14 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1950. The court also highlighted the absurdity of the trespass notices which effectively covered the entire greater Auckland metropolitan area, reinforcing the conclusion that the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process. The court decided that it would be manifestly unfair for the defendant to have to respond to such a meritless and vexatious case.

Orders