McConnor v Auckland Transport - [2025] NZSC 97

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 50/2025
[2025] NZSC 97

BETWEEN	JAMES JOHN MCCONNOR Applicant
AND	AUCKLAND TRANSPORT First Respondent BAYCORP (NZ) LIMITED Second Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Miller JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person T C Goatley and K M Wilson for First Respondent J G Ussher and S Kim for Second Respondent
Judgment:	1 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
BThe applicant must pay the respondents one set of costs of $2,500.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

The applicant, Mr McConnor, seeks leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal declining an application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision.[1] The Deputy Registrar’s decision was to decline the applicant’s application for waiver of security for costs in relation to his appeal from a decision of Associate Judge Brittain in the High Court rejecting his application for summary judgment and striking out his defamation claim.[2]

Background

[1]McConnor v Auckland Transport [2025] NZCA 152 (Hinton J) [CA judgment].

[2]McConnor v Auckland Transport [2024] NZHC 1709.

A vehicle registered in the applicant’s name was driven in a bus lane on an Auckland road on 15 October 2022. The first respondent, Auckland Transport, issued an infringement notice to the applicant for an offence under the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004. The Court of Appeal summarised the next steps as follows:[3]
[3] On 25 December 2022, Auckland Transport electronically referred the infringement fee to its debt collection agent, the second respondent, Baycorp (NZ) Ltd (Baycorp). On 31 March 2023, Auckland Transport followed the process in s 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 to commence proceedings in the District Court by automated electronic means in respect of the alleged infringement offence.
[4] Mr McConnor then filed a defamation claim against Auckland Transport and Baycorp NZ and sought summary judgment in respect of that claim. The claim was based on the proposition that each of the two “communications” above — Auckland Transport’s electronic referral to Baycorp and Auckland Transport’s proceeding under s 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act — constituted defamation.
[3]CA judgment, above n 1.
The applicant sought summary judgment as did both of the respondents.[4] The High Court, as we have said, found in favour of the respondents. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal. After the applicant’s appeal was filed in the Court of Appeal, security for costs was set at $14,120.[5] As noted above, the Deputy Registrar declined waiver and that decision was upheld on review by Hinton J.[6]
[4]In the alternative, the respondents sought an order striking out the claim.
[5]Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(3), (4) and (5).
[6]CA judgment, above n 1, at [16].
In dismissing the review application, the Court of Appeal said this:[7]
[12] The Judge held that Mr McConnor’s claim failed both because he was not, in fact, defamed by either communication, and because in any case his…

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 McConnor v Auckland Transport 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: [2025] NZSC 97
Decision Date: 1 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, James John McConnor sought leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal, which had declined an application for review of a decision by the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar had declined Mr McConnor’s application for a waiver of security for costs in relation to his appeal from a decision of Associate Judge Brittain in the High Court. The High Court had rejected Mr McConnor's application for summary judgment and had struck out his defamation claim. The Court of Appeal upheld the Deputy Registrar’s decision. Mr McConnor sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal had erred in not considering his claim that the Associate Judge lacked the jurisdiction to preside over defamation proceedings. The first respondent, Auckland Transport, and the second respondent, Baycorp (NZ) Ltd, opposed the application, arguing that the Associate Judge had the requisite jurisdiction under the Senior Courts Act 2016.

The court considered whether the Associate Judge had jurisdiction to preside over the defamation proceedings. The court noted that the Defamation Act 1992 did not explicitly exclude Associate Judges from presiding over such proceedings, and the Senior Courts Act provided broad jurisdictional powers to Associate Judges, including over applications for summary judgment and strike-outs. The Associate Judge had already addressed this issue in a costs decision, finding that he had jurisdiction under the cited sections of the Senior Courts Act. The court found that the argument about jurisdiction had already been dealt with by the Deputy Registrar and the Associate Judge, and it did not see any appearance of a miscarriage of justice. The proposed appeal lacked sufficient prospects of success, and the respondents should have the protection of security for costs.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay one set of costs of $2,500.

Orders