Murray v Gisborne District Council - [2011] NZCA 282

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA224/2011
[2011] NZCA 282

BETWEEN JOHN CARNE MURRAY
Applicant

AND GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL
Respondent

Hearing: 14 June 2011

Court: Chambers, Ellen France and Stevens JJ

Counsel: Applicant in person
D J O'Connor for Respondent

Judgment: 21 June 2011 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for special leave to appeal is dismissed.

BThe applicant must pay the respondent costs for a standard application on a band A basis plus usual disbursements.

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Ellen France J)

Introduction

Mr Murray applies for special leave to appeal to this Court against a decision of Joseph Williams J striking out Mr Murray’s application for an extension of time to file an appeal against the decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal (the Tribunal).[1] Special leave is necessary as Joseph Williams J declined to grant leave to appeal.[2]

Background

[1] Murray v Gisborne District Council HC Wellington CIV-2010-485-743, 3 June 2010.

[2]Human Rights Act 1993, s 124(1) and Murray v Gisborne District Council HC Wellington CIV‑2010-485-743, 30 March 2011.

The factual background is set out in Joseph William J’s decision striking out Mr Murray’s appeal.[3] For present purposes, we need only note that through his involvement with a company called Origen Technology Limited in 2001 Mr Murray had undertaken work on the Gisborne District Council’s computers. Mr Murray was subsequently taken off the job and there followed “a lengthy period of conflict between [Mr Murray] and Origen, and [Mr Murray] and the Council”.[4] The parties’ respective positions were summarised by Joseph Williams J in these terms:[5]
Mr O’Connor [for the Council] says that [Mr Murray] has been engaged in a one-man vendetta against the Council since 2001. Mr Murray says [the] actions [of a council officer] have cost him his house, his livelihood and even his friends.
[3] At [1]–[3].
[4] At [1].
[5] At [1].
The proposed appeal to the High Court, which is the subject of the present application, related to an internal memorandum dated 11 December 2008. The memorandum was prepared by the Council officer responsible for its computers and was addressed to the Council’s chief executive. The memorandum explained the officer’s recollection of events leading to Mr Murray being excluded from the work for the Council. Mr Murray sought disclosure of documents about his removal held by the Council. The memorandum of 11 December was one of the documents disclosed. Before disclosing the memorandum, the Council redacted 14 lines from it. Mr Murray complained to the Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner about the redaction. When these complaints did not bear fruit, Mr Murray issued proceedings in the Tribunal. Mr Murray sought disclosure of the document in its un-redacted form and $20,000 damages.
The Tribunal upheld the application for full disclosure but declined to award damages.[6] Mr Murray appealed to the High Court but his appeal was out of time because he failed to serve the Council with notice of the appeal within the 30 day…

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 Murray v Gisborne District 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: [2011] NZCA 282
Decision Date: 21 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

John Carne Murray, an applicant, sought special leave to appeal a decision by Joseph Williams J to strike out his appeal against a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal. The Gisborne District Council opposed the application. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, ruling that the matter did not involve a question of law of sufficient importance to warrant special leave. The applicant had failed to serve the notice of appeal within the 30-day period prescribed by the Human Rights Act 1993. The Court noted that the applicant's misunderstanding of the technical procedures and dissatisfaction with the assistance received from the High Court registry did not alter the fact that he was out of time. Additionally, the issues the applicant sought to raise in his proposed appeal did not arise from the decision of the Tribunal. The Court found that there was no issue before them capable of serious or bona fide argument, leading to the dismissal of the application for special leave. The respondent was awarded costs for a standard application on a band A basis, along with usual disbursements.

Orders