Jefferies v Wellington Regional Council - [2014] NZHC 916

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2013-485-009097 [2014] NZHC 916

BETWEEN
ALAN DENNIS JEFFERIES

Applicant/Plaintiff

AND

WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL First Respondent/First Defendant

UPPER HUTT COUNCIL
Second Respondent/Second Defendant

LUKE CUNNINGHAM & CLERE Third Respondent/Third Defendant

CIV-2014-485-001323

BETWEEN ALAN DENNIS JEFFERIES Applicant/Plaintiff

ANDWELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL First Respondent/First Defendant

LUKE CUNNINGHAM & CLERE Second Respondent/Second Defendant

Hearing: 5 May 2014

Counsel:

Applicant/Plaintiff in person

D R La Hood and J A Eng for First and Third Respondents in proceeding CIV-2013-485-009097 and First and Second Respondents in proceeding CIV-2014-485-001323

P Moodley for Second Respondent in proceeding CIV-2013-
485-009097

Judgment:

6 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

JEFFERIES v WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 916 [6 May 2014]

Introduction

[1] This judgment explains why I must strike out two sets of proceedings

Mr Jefferies has commenced.

[2] In one proceeding Mr Jefferies has sought judicial review of decisions of the Wellington Regional Council (Regional Council), Upper Hutt City Council (City Council) and the law firm Luke Cunningham & Clere, which is responsible for prosecuting certain charges brought against Mr Jefferies by the Regional Council. I shall refer to this proceeding as the “judicial review proceeding”.

[3] In the second proceeding, headed “Statement of Claim for Injunction” Mr Jefferies sues the Regional Council and Luke Cunningham & Clere in relation to the way they have conducted litigation that has resulted in various judgments against Mr Jefferies, culminating in a decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on
12 February 2014.1 I shall refer to this proceeding as the “injunction proceeding”.

[4] I have concluded Mr Jefferies’ proceedings must be struck out because they:2

(1) disclose no reasonably arguable cause of action; (2) are frivolous; and
(3) are an abuse of the process of this Court.

[5] In reaching this conclusion I have applied the principles governing strike-out applications explained by the Court of Appeal in Attorney-General v Prince3 and endorsed by the Supreme Court in Couch v Attorney-General:4

(1) Pleaded facts, whether or not admitted, are assumed to be true. This does not extend to pleaded allegations which are entirely speculative
and without foundation.

1      Jefferies v Wellington Regional Council [2014] NZCA 15.
2      High Court Rules, r 15.1(1).
3      Attorney-General v Prince [1998] 1 NZLR 262 (CA).
4      Couch v Attorney-General [2008] NZSC 45, [2008] 3 NZLR 725 at [33].

(2) The cause of action must be clearly untenable.

(3) The jurisdiction to strike out is to be exercised sparingly and only in clear cases.

(4) The jurisdiction to strike out is not excluded by the need to decide difficult questions of law requiring extensive argument.

(5) The Court should be particularly slow to strike out a claim in any developing area of law, particularly where a duty of care is alleged in a new situation.

Background

[6] In February 2002 Mr Jefferies purchased a block of land within the boundaries of the Regional Council and the City Council. The Mangaroa River flows through a portion of…

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 Jefferies v Wellington Regional Council 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: [2014] NZHC 916
Decision Date: 6 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court was tasked with addressing two sets of proceedings initiated by Mr Alan Dennis Jefferies against the Wellington Regional Council, the Upper Hutt City Council, and the law firm Luke Cunningham & Clere. The first proceeding involved a judicial review of the decisions made by these entities, while the second sought an injunction related to the manner in which litigation had been conducted against Mr Jefferies. The court had to decide whether Mr Jefferies' claims had a reasonably arguable cause of action, were frivolous, or constituted an abuse of court process.

The court found that Mr Jefferies' claims were without merit and constituted an abuse of process. The judicial review proceeding alleged that the Regional Council failed to provide flood protection and river maintenance services, that the charges against Mr Jefferies should never have been laid, that the Regional Council was liable for negligence, and that the City Council breached an agreement concerning watercourses. The injunction proceeding alleged that the Regional Council and Luke Cunningham & Clere misrepresented the status of the Mangaroa River as it passed through Mr Jefferies' land. The court determined that these claims disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action, were frivolous, and were an abuse of the court's process. The court found the claims to be untenable and not deserving of further judicial consideration.

In conclusion, the court ordered that both sets of proceedings initiated by Mr Jefferies be struck out. The Wellington Regional Council and the Upper Hutt City Council were each awarded costs on a scale 2B basis, while no award was made in favour of Luke Cunningham & Clere. The decision effectively dismissed Mr Jefferies' legal challenges and reinforced the courts' reluctance to interfere with prosecutorial decisions and the finality of judicial decisions.

Orders