Hall v Attorney-General - [2012] NZHC 1517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2006-404-003321 [2012] NZHC 1517

BETWEEN JOHN HALLIDAY HALL Plaintiff

ANDTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Defendant

Hearing: 18-22 and 27-28 June 2012

Counsel: A H J Commons for the Plaintiff
H S Hancock and A A Jacobs for the Defendant

Judgment: 28 June 2012

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

[Re Application to Amend Prayer for Relief]

Counsel: A H J Commons P O Box 4304 Shortland Street Auckland 1140 for the Plaintiff

Solicitors: Crown Law P O Box 2858 Wellington 6140 (DX SP20208) for the Defendant

HALL v ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC AK CIV-2006-404-003321 [28 June 2012]

[1] This proceeding is about whether a parcel of land should be offered back to its former owner in accordance with s 40(2) of the Public Works Act 1981.

[2] The proceeding has reached the stage where the evidence is completed, and I

am now hearing closing submissions from the parties.

[3] Yesterday, as the plaintiff was delivering his closing submission, I was advised that the plaintiff wanted to alter the relief sought in the amended statement of claim. The amendment would have the effect of inviting this Court to make a declaration that the subject land be offered back to the plaintiff, rather than to declare that the decision to exempt the land from offer back be sent back to the decision- maker for re-consideration.

[4] The Crown indicated that it opposed any amendment to the prayer for relief. This stance made it necessary for the plaintiff to make a formal application to amend the prayer for relief. He now does so. The relief that is now being sought is as follows:

(a) A declaration that:

(i) The western block was not required for the Crown’s public

work and was to be offered back as at May 1999;

(ii)The delegatee’s decision to exempt the western block (less RAP 21) from offer back to the plaintiff is unlawful and is set aside; and

(iii) The Crown be obliged to offer the western block (less

RAP 21) to the plaintiff under s 40 of the Public Works Act

1981 as at May 1999.

[5] The plaintiff submits that the proposed relief is much the same as was sought in the original statement of claim filed on 14 June 2006. In that pleading, he had sought declarations that the Crown was obliged to offer to the plaintiff the right to purchase either the whole of the area described as the western block as at valuation

as at May 1999, or the whole of the western block, excluding the area known as

RAP 21 as at the same valuation date.

[6] At the time the proceedings were commenced, there was no decision to exempt the subject land from offer back under the Public Works Act. However, on
29 July 2009, the delegatee of the Chief Executive of Land Information

New Zealand exercised the power to exempt the property from offer back.

[7] Following this event, the plaintiff applied to amend the…

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 Hall v Attorney-General 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: [2012] NZHC 1517
Decision Date: 28 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hall v Attorney-General involves a dispute over whether a parcel of land should be offered back to its former owner, John Halliday Hall, in accordance with s 40(2) of the Public Works Act 1981. The defendant, the Attorney-General, argued that the land was exempt from being offered back to the plaintiff, while the plaintiff sought a declaration that the land be offered back. The court had to decide on the plaintiff's application to amend the prayer for relief, which would invite the court to make a declaration that the land be offered back to the plaintiff rather than to declare that the decision to exempt the land from offer back be sent back to the decision-maker for reconsideration. The plaintiff argued that the amendment was in the interest of justice and would allow him to argue that the interests of justice did not lie in sending the decision to exempt back for reconsideration. The Crown opposed the amendment, contending that responsibility for delay fell equally on both parties and that it was usual for decisions found to be unlawful to be sent back to the decision-maker for reconsideration.

The court found that amending the prayer for relief to permit the plaintiff to make his arguments on this issue would not cause any injustice to the Crown, and the Crown would still be free to argue that should the court find the decision to exempt from offer back was unlawful, the proper course of action is for the court to send it back to the decision-maker for reconsideration. The court also found that there was no proper basis for refusing the amendment and that the prayer for relief was amended to read as set out in [4] herein. The court found in favour of the plaintiff and allowed the amendment to the prayer for relief.

Orders