Guo v Culpan - [2020] NZCA 293

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA631/2019
[2020] NZCA 293

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

Court:	Brown and Collins JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person H C Stuart for First Respondent No appearance for Second Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	15 July 2020 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for special leave to appeal is declined.
BThe application for an extension of time to appeal in relation to the judicial review proceeding is granted until 12 August 2020.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Brown J)

Introduction

In 2016 Ms Guo made a complaint to the Human Rights Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) that the first respondent, Dr Culpan, had breached her right to privacy. In a decision delivered in 2018 the Tribunal struck out Ms Guo’s claim against Dr Culpan for the following reasons:[1]
[38] Given the disputes between Dr Culpan and Ms Guo in this proceeding, Ms Stuart had a duty to cross-examine Ms Guo on the matters concerning which Dr Culpan would be giving contradictory evidence. Ms Guo’s refusal to allow herself to be cross-examined allowed Dr Culpan no fair opportunity to test the veracity of her evidence. This was unfair and prejudicial to Dr Culpan in light of the serious factual allegations made against him in Ms Guo’s evidence in chief.
[39] The refusal to submit to cross-examination effectively prevented the Tribunal from fact-finding in these proceedings and effectively denied Dr Culpan a right to be heard in defence of the allegations made against him by Ms Guo. Accordingly, the Tribunal determined that the evidence of Ms Guo could not be accepted and should be excluded as unfairly prejudicial. In the absence of any evidence that could be accepted, and Ms Guo’s steadfast refusal to be cross-examined, the application to strike out Ms Guo’s proceedings was granted. The proceedings were therefore struck out.
[1]Guo v Culpan [2018] NZHRRT 25.
Ms Guo filed two proceedings in the High Court:
(a)on 18 July 2018 a notice of appeal against the Tribunal’s decision striking out her claim against Dr Culpan on the grounds of her refusal to be cross-examined (CIV‑2018‑404‑1499); and
(b)on 7 December 2018 an application for judicial review of various decisions made by the Tribunal in the period leading up to the Tribunal hearing (CIV‑2018‑404‑2695).
In the appeal, an order was sought that the Tribunal’s strike out decision be reversed. The relief sought in the judicial review proceeding included orders quashing the final decision and directing the Tribunal to rehear the claim with a different chairperson. The Co-Chairperson had declined Ms Guo’s application for recusal.
The appeal and review were heard together by Palmer J in the High Court on 12 March 2019. They were both dismissed in a judgment delivered on 13 August 2019.[2]
[2]Guo v Culpan [2019] NZHC 1963.
On 3 September 2019 Ms Guo filed in the High Court an…

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 [2020] NZCA 293
Case: [2020] NZCA 293
Decision Date: 15 July 2020 at 11.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Guo v Culpan involves a complaint by Ms Guo against Dr Culpan, alleging a breach of her right to privacy by the Human Rights Review Tribunal. The dispute reached the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, where Ms Guo sought special leave to appeal the High Court's decision and an extension of time to appeal the judicial review proceeding. The High Court had dismissed both her appeal against the Tribunal's decision and her application for judicial review. The appeal and review proceedings were heard together by Palmer J, who found that the Tribunal's decision to strike out Ms Guo's claim was fair, reasonable, and justified.

The primary legal issues the Court had to decide were whether Ms Guo's application for special leave to appeal the High Court's dismissal of her appeal and application for judicial review should be granted, and whether an extension of time should be granted for the appeal in relation to the judicial review proceeding. Ms Guo argued that several questions of law were involved, including whether the High Court erred in assessing apparent bias and in endorsing the Tribunal's decision to strike out her claim. However, the Court concluded that most of the issues Ms Guo raised were not truly questions of law and did not meet the threshold for a second appeal.

Regarding the application for an extension of time to appeal the judicial review proceeding, the Court noted that Ms Guo had a right to a first appeal to the Court of Appeal from the judicial review component of the High Court judgment. The Court accepted that Ms Guo's delay in filing the appeal was genuine and explicable due to her self-representation and confusion about the legal requirements. While Dr Culpan would have suffered some hardship, the Court found that the interests of justice would be best served by granting the extension of time. The Court granted the application for an extension of time until 12 August 2020.

The final orders of the Court were that the application for special leave to appeal was declined, and the application for an extension of time to appeal in relation to the judicial review proceeding was granted until 12 August 2020. There was no order as to costs.

Orders