Mills v Howard-Mills - [2024] NZHC 3611

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2024-441-91

[2024] NZHC 3611

UNDER
The Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, the Crimes Act 1961, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, the Fair Trading Act 1986, the Land Transfer Act 2017 and the

Climate Change Response Act 2002

IN THE MATTER OF

Fraudulent misrepresentation, tortious deceit, false declaration, breach of contract, and

infringement offences

BETWEEN

LYNETTE JOY MILLS

Plaintiff

AND

GRAHAM HOWARD-MILLS

Defendant

On the Papers

Judgment:

29 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

(Striking out claim under 5.35B High Court Rules 2016)

Background

[1] On 4 November 2024 Radich J made an order under r 5.35B(2)(b) of the High Court Rules 2016 that the plaintiff file an amended statement of claim removing from the statement of claim allegations relating to claims that had already been dealt with.1 The Judge stated:
… the plaintiff needs to file an amended statement of claim that removes allegations which resurrect claims that have already been dealt with, even in a collateral way, such as those referred to in para [9] above. The statement of

1 Mills v Howard-Mills [2024] NZHC 3241 [November decision] at [16].

MILLS v HOWARD-MILLS [2024] NZHC 3611 [29 November 2024]

claim should be concerned solely with the allegations that are made under the Climate Change Response Act.

[2] The judgment also notified the plaintiff that under s 56 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 she had a right to appeal against the decision. It appears that Ms Mills has now filed an appeal.

Amended statement of claim

[3] Following Radich J’s direction, Ms Mills has filed an amended statement of claim dated 18 November 2024. The amended claim has been referred to me as Duty Judge, to consider whether it meets the requirements specified by Radich J, so that the stay of proceedings can be lifted.

[4] I have concluded that the amended claim does not comply with Radich J’s direction and should be struck out.

[5] The first 15 paragraphs of the amended statement of claim mainly purport to relitigate Radich J’s judgment. Similarly, two paragraphs of the amended claim purport to relitigate the earlier decisions of Mallon J and Associate Judge Johnston.

[6] The amended statement of claim sets out “offences by Graham Howard-Mills under the Climate Change Response Act 2002”. It also includes “amended claims against solicitor Bodee Oliver”.

[7]I consider each of those in turn.

Claims against Graham Howard-Mills

[8] The plaintiff alleges that Mr Howard-Mills falsely declared that he was a Rautiti property owner entitled to register as an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) participant.

[9] The plaintiff makes allegations against Mr Howard-Mills under multiple sections of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (CCR Act).

[10] At the heart of the CCR Act claims is the allegation that on 13 December 2011 the defendant lodged an application to be registered as a participant in the ETS with the plaintiff. Ms Mills pleads that in that application Mr…

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 Mills v Howard-Mills

Details

AGLC: Mills v Howard-Mills [2024] NZHC 3611
Case: [2024] NZHC 3611
Decision Date: 29 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Mills v Howard-Mills concerns allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit, false declaration, breach of contract, and infringement offences. The plaintiff, Lynette Joy Mills, filed an amended statement of claim against the defendant, Graham Howard-Mills, and a solicitor, Bodee Oliver. The legal issues revolved around whether the amended statement of claim complied with previous court orders to remove allegations that had already been addressed. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the amended claim met the requirements set by Radich J, allowing the stay of proceedings to be lifted.

The court found that the amended statement of claim did not comply with the previous direction. The first fifteen paragraphs of the amended claim relitigated previous judgments, and two paragraphs revisited earlier decisions by other judges. The amended claim made allegations under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 and included claims against the solicitor, Bodee Oliver. The court held that the claims against both defendants were intertwined with allegations already considered in previous proceedings. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to make a decent attempt to frame her claim as directed by Radich J. Given the history of the case, the court determined that the amended statement of claim was an abuse of process and should be struck out.

The court struck out the amended statement of claim dated 18 November 2024, pursuant to rule 5.35B(2)(a) of the High Court Rules 2016. Lynette Joy Mills had the right to appeal this decision under section 56 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The court's decision effectively prevented the plaintiff from proceeding with her claims, barring any further attempts to litigate the same issues.

Orders