Legal Research
Cases
Lyttelton v Davison

Lyttelton v Davison

Case [2017] NZHC 1716 24 July 2017

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-000612 [2017] NZHC 1716

BETWEEN
MARTIN VICTOR LYTTELTON

Plaintiff

AND

PAUL JOSEPH DAVISON QC First Defendant

AND

MINTER ELLISON RUDD WATTS Second Defendant

AND

AARON LLOYD Third Defendant

AND

CATHY QUINN Fourth Defendant

Hearing: 19-20 June 2017

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person
P Rzepecky and A Colgan for the First Defendant
S Grieve QC and M Harris for the Second, Third and Fourth
Defendants

Judgment:

24 July 2017

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] On 8 April 2008, the plaintiff, Mr Lyttelton, drove to the residence of his former business partner, Mr Ord, armed with a knife, shotgun and cartridges. He fired the shotgun through the door, severely injuring Mr Ord’s partner who was holding the door on the other side trying to prevent his entry. In an ensuing struggle with Mr Ord, Mr Lyttelton fired a second shot and attempted to stab Mr Ord in the stomach area on three or four occasions. Mr Ord suffered a number of cuts to his
hands.

LYTTELTON v DAVISON [2017] NZHC 1716 [24 July 2017]

[2] Mr Lyttelton was subsequently arrested and charged with two counts of attempted murder and one of aggravated burglary. He engaged the second defendant, Minter Ellison, as solicitors. The third defendant, Mr Lloyd, was a solicitor with the firm who assisted in Mr Lyttelton’s defence. The fourth defendant, Ms Quinn, was a partner of Minter Ellison. They instructed the first defendant, Mr Davison QC, as counsel.

[3] On 12 November 2009, Mr Lyttelton pleaded guilty to one count of attempted murder, one of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure and one of aggravated burglary. On 31 March 2010, he was sentenced to five years and 11 months’ imprisonment. He was released on parole on 2 May 2011.

[4] In December 2012, Mr Lyttelton filed an appeal against his convictions. That appeal was heard in November 2014. On 19 December 2014, the Court of Appeal quashed his convictions on the basis Mr Lyttelton had pleaded guilty “under a self- induced mistake of law”, that he could deny having the necessary criminal intent, through a disputed facts hearing. A retrial was ordered.

[5] Mr Lyttelton was retried on the charges to which he had originally pleaded guilty. He was found guilty on all charges by a jury and convicted on 17 March
2016.

[6] On 30 March 2016, he commenced these proceedings.

[7] On 10 May 2016, Minter Ellison filed an application to strike out Mr

Lyttelton’s claim. On 16 May 2016, Mr Davison filed a similar application.

[8] On 18 May 2016, Mr Lyttelton was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment

following his renewed convictions.

[9] The strike out applications were argued before me on 19 and 20 June 2017. [10] Mr Lyttelton represented himself in these proceedings. He was his own
advocate before the Court of Appeal and in judicial review proceedings before Katz J

and at his retrial. In the Court of Appeal, he gave his occupation as…

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 Lyttelton v Davison

Details

AGLC: Lyttelton v Davison [2017] NZHC 1716
Case: [2017] NZHC 1716
Decision Date: 24 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lyttelton v Davison, Martin Victor Lyttelton brought proceedings against his former lawyers and counsel in relation to their involvement in criminal proceedings against him for attempted murder, causing grievous bodily harm with intent and aggravated burglary. Lyttelton alleged that his lawyers and counsel had been negligent and had acted in breach of fiduciary duty and had defamed him. Lyttelton claimed damages for losses he alleged he had suffered as a result of their conduct. The defendants filed applications to strike out Lyttelton’s claim. The High Court found that Lyttelton had no prospect of success in his claims and that it would be an abuse of process for him to continue with the proceedings. The Court found that the claims were statute-barred, that they had been determined in the criminal proceedings and that they would result in the re-litigation of issues which had been decided. The Court granted the applications to strike out the claims and ordered Lyttelton to pay the defendants’ costs.

Orders