Guo v Culpan - [2022] NZCA 432

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA631/2019
[2022] NZCA 432

BETWEEN	YAN GUO Appellant
AND	STEPHEN JAMES CULPAN First Respondent
AND	HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

Hearing:	28 October 2021
Court:	Kós P, Cooper and Clifford JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in Person H C Stuart for First Respondent No appearance for Second Respondent
Judgment:	12 September 2022 at 11:00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is dismissed.
BThe appellant must pay the first respondent costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis, together with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Cooper J)

Introduction

In a judgment delivered on 13 August 2019 the High Court dismissed an appeal by the appellant, Yan Guo, against a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) striking out her claim against the first respondent, Dr Stephen Culpan.[1] Dr Culpan was a medical practitioner whom Ms Guo had seen at the request of her employer. Ms Guo alleged that Dr Culpan had breached her right to privacy, but the Human Rights Review Tribunal struck out her claim when, at the substantive hearing before it, Ms Guo refused to be cross-examined.[2]
[1]Guo v Culpan [2019] NZHC 1963 [High Court judgment].
[2]Guo v Culpan (Strike-Out) [2018] NZHRRT 25. Ms Guo maintains on appeal that she did not refuse to be cross-examined.
In the same judgment, the High Court dismissed an application for review made by Ms Guo under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 challenging various interlocutory decisions made by the Tribunal on issues arising out of the same proceeding.[3]
[3]High Court judgment, above n 1, at [24]–[62].
The High Court later declined an application for leave to bring an appeal to this Court under s 124(1) of the Human Rights Act 1993.[4] Palmer J considered that Ms Guo had not identified a question or arguable error of law in the High Court judgment, and in any event none of the matters which she wished to raise on a second appeal were questions which by reason of their general or public importance, or for any other reason, should be submitted to this Court for decision.[5]
[4]Guo v Culpan (No 2) [2019] NZHC 2935.
[5]At [7].
Subsequently, this Court granted an application by Ms Guo under r 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 for an extension of time to appeal from the High Court’s dismissal of her application for review.[6] But this Court declined to grant special leave to appeal to this Court under s 124(3) of the Human Rights Act against the High Court’s dismissal of her appeal against the Tribunal’s decision.[7] This Court later declined an application for recall of that judgment.[8]
[6]Guo v Culpan [2020] NZCA 293 at [32].
[7]At [19].
[8]Guo v Culpan [2020] NZCA 377.
In the result we have before us an appeal against the High Court’s refusal of the application for review.[9] In circumstances that we…

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.

Continue reading Guo v Culpan

Details

AGLC: Guo v Culpan [2022] NZCA 432
Case: [2022] NZCA 432
Decision Date: 12 September 2022 at 11:00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in this case was brought by Yan Guo against a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) striking out her claim against Dr Stephen Culpan. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which held that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success. Ms Guo's claim was that Dr Culpan breached her right to privacy, but the Tribunal struck out her claim when, at the substantive hearing before it, she refused to be cross-examined. The Court of Appeal held that the Tribunal's decision to strike out the claim was fair, reasonable, and justified, and that the Court could not conclude that the Tribunal might have resolved the claim in Ms Guo's favour. The Court held that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was confined by the ambit of the complaint properly before it, which did not offer an appropriate vehicle for the airing of the grievances that Ms Guo in fact sought to pursue against Dr Culpan. The Court also held that the Privacy Act was not the appropriate vehicle for the pursuit of claims that Dr Culpan had not met proper standards of professional conduct. The appeal was dismissed and the appellant must pay the first respondent costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis, together with usual disbursements.

Orders