Haden v Wells - [2013] NZHC 2753

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-2890 [2013] NZHC 2753

BETWEEN GRACE HADEN Appellant

ANDNEIL EDWARD WELLS First Respondent

WINIFRED NORIEN HOADLEY Second Respondent
GRAEME JOHN COUTTS Third Respondent

Hearing: 4 September 2013

Appearances: Appellant, Ms Haden, in person
DJ Neutze and B Atkins for Respondents

Judgment: 22 October 2013

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 October 2013 at 12 noon pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Appellant in person
Brookfields (Auckland) for Respondents

HADEN v WELLS & ORS [2013] NZHC 2753 [22 October 2013]

Introduction

[1] Ms Haden appeals the decision of Judge BA Gibson in the District Court at Auckland delivered on 10 May 2013.1 This is the latest decision in a long-running battle between Ms Haden and the respondents, but particularly Mr Wells.

[2] The trouble between Ms Haden and Mr Wells began when the two fell out over their involvement in a community organisation. This led Ms Haden to investigate Mr Wells’s role in a trust called Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ). Ms Haden formed strong views on the propriety of Mr Wells’s role and launched a sustained attack against him.

[3] Mr Wells and AWINZ sued Ms Haden in the District Court in 2006, alleging breach of the Fair Trading Act, passing off and defamation.

[4] On 19 July 2007, Judge M-E Sharp in the District Court at Auckland struck out Ms Haden’s defence for failure to comply with an unless order. That order related to the payment of costs on a failed counterclaim brought by Ms Haden. Thereafter, Judge Joyce QC heard formal proof on the claims against Ms Haden. By that time, all claims other than the claim by Mr Wells that he had been defamed had been withdrawn. Formal proof was partly effected by Mr Wells verifying the statement of claim on oath. He also filed an affidavit and was cross-examined. Judge Joyce gave Ms Haden more latitude than would normally be given in a formal proof situation. Effectively, she was able to present her defence. In a reserved judgment, Judge Joyce found the allegation of defamation proved and awarded
damages.2

[5] Since then the following Court action has occurred:

(a) On 26 August 2008, Ms Haden filed a notice of appeal from Judge

Joyce’s judgment and sought leave to appeal out of time the unless

order, which had struck out her statement of defence. On 4 December

1 Haden v Wells DC Auckland CIV-2012-004-696, 10 May 2013.
2 Wells & Ors v Haden & Ors DC Auckland CIV-2006-004-1784, 30 July 2008.

2008, John Hansen J declined leave to appeal.3 The substantive appeal was dismissed by Rodney Hansen J on 20 November 2009.4

(b)Ms Haden then sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The application was declined by Rodney Hansen J on 23 June 2010.5

(c) Ms Haden then applied for special leave to appeal to the Court of

Appeal. The application was declined on…

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 Haden v Wells

Details

AGLC: Haden v Wells [2013] NZHC 2753
Case: [2013] NZHC 2753
Decision Date: 22 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Haden v Wells involved an appeal by Ms Haden against a decision of the District Court at Auckland. The case was the latest in a series of disputes between Ms Haden and Mr Wells, stemming from their involvement in a community organisation. The conflict escalated when Ms Haden investigated Mr Wells' role in the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ), leading to a defamation lawsuit against her. The District Court had previously found Ms Haden's allegations of defamation proven and awarded damages to Mr Wells. Ms Haden filed a new claim alleging fraud and deceit by the respondents, seeking to set aside the earlier judgment. The District Court struck out her claim, and she appealed this decision.

The court had to determine whether the District Court's decision to strike out Ms Haden's claim was correct. The primary issue was whether Ms Haden had established a prima facie case of fraud to justify setting aside the previous judgment. Ms Haden argued that Mr Wells had committed fraud by obtaining a judgment against her, and the District Court had the inherent power to vitiate such a judgment. She relied on new documents, including an audit report, to support her claim. The respondents argued that even if fraud were proven, it would not affect the defamation judgment.

The court found that while the District Court had the power to set aside a judgment obtained by fraud, Ms Haden had not established a prima facie case of fraud. The audit report, which was critical of AWINZ's governance, did not indicate fraud. The court concluded that the new documents did not provide a sufficient evidential foundation to establish fraud. Even if the fraud allegations were true, they would not have affected the outcome of the defamation case. Therefore, the District Court's decision to strike out Ms Haden's claim was upheld, and her appeal was dismissed. The respondents were entitled to costs, which were to be determined in subsequent proceedings.

Orders