Guo v Culpan - [2019] NZHC 2935

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2018-404-1499

CIV 2018-404-2695

[2019] NZHC 2935

UNDER
the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016, the Human Rights Act 1993 and

the Privacy Act 1993

IN THE MATTER

of an application for review and an appeal

BETWEEN

YAN GUO

Applicant

AND

STEPHEN JAMES CULPAN

First Respondent

AND

THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Hearing: 8 November 2019

Appearances:

The applicant in person with McKenzie friend, L Yan H C Stuart for the first respondent

Date of judgment:

11 November 2019

JUDGMENT NO 2 OF PALMER J

The judgment was delivered by me on 11 November 2019 at 3.30pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

……………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors: Applicant in person
H C Stuart Barrister, Auckland Wotton + Kearney, Wellington

GUO v CULPAN (NO 2) [2019] NZHC 2935 [11 November 2019]

What happened?

[1] In 2016, Ms Sylvia Yan Guo complained to the Human Rights Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) that Dr Stephen Culpan had breached her right to privacy. In 2017 and 2018, the Tribunal made a series of rulings against Ms Guo. A week before the substantive Tribunal hearing, in May 2018, the Tribunal declined her application for an adjournment to allow her to reformulate her case with her newly appointed senior counsel, who was not available on the hearing date. At the hearing, Ms Guo refused to be cross-examined. The Tribunal struck out her claim.1

[2] Ms Guo applied to the High Court for judicial review of a number of the Tribunal’s interlocutory decisions and she appealed the Tribunal’s strike out decision. In a judgment of 13 August 2019, I declined both the judicial review and appeal. In summary, I said:2
[2] This claim concerns the right to privacy, so human rights are at stake and the Court is entitled to subject the decision-maker’s reasoning to anxious or heightened scrutiny on judicial review. But I dismiss the applications for judicial review and appeal. The portions of Ms Guo’s reply evidence that were struck out were irrelevant to the issues before the Tribunal. The scope of the substantive merits of a claim must be interpreted with the anxious scrutiny consistent with the Act’s purpose of better protecting human rights in New Zealand. But, once so interpreted, the Tribunal and the parties must stay within that scope. Requiring that is not a technicality. There was also no error in the decision to decline issuing a witness summons to produce documents of dubious relevance just before the hearing after discovery had been completed seven months earlier. There was no reason for the Co-Chairperson to recuse herself for bias or the appearance of bias. The Co-Chairperson’s decision not to adjourn the hearing a week beforehand was fair, reasonable and justified. And, whatever the degree of anxiety with which I review it, I consider the Tribunal’s decision to strike out Ms Guo’s claim was fair, reasonable and justified, given Ms Guo’s…

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 [2019] NZHC 2935
Case: [2019] NZHC 2935
Decision Date: 11 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Guo v Culpan, the applicant, Ms Guo, sought leave to appeal the High Court's decision which dismissed her appeal and judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Review Tribunal. The Tribunal had ruled against Ms Guo in a complaint she brought against Dr Culpan, alleging a breach of her right to privacy. Ms Guo contended that the Tribunal was biased and that her genuine and meritorious claim was wrongly struck out. The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had identified a question or arguable error of law in the High Court judgment that warranted an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The court considered the submissions made by Ms Guo, which largely focused on the facts of her case before the Tribunal, and sought to justify her actions or criticise Dr Culpan's actions. The court found that Ms Guo had not identified a question or arguable error of law in the High Court judgment that rose to the level of one which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.

The court held that Ms Guo had not identified any question of law in relation to the judgment's findings about bias, as she was challenging the application of the legal approach on the facts rather than the approach itself. The court also found that the Tribunal's decisions were just unfavourable to Ms Guo's case and did not reveal any bias. The court further held that the High Court judgment correctly rejected Ms Guo's submission that her right to natural justice was unfairly denied because the co-chair denied her right to call evidence. The court declined the application for leave to appeal the judgment on the appeal of the Tribunal's decision and awarded costs to Dr Culpan on a 2B basis.

Orders