Murray v The Disputes Tribunal - [2012] NZHC 2206

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2012-485-500 [2012] NZHC 2206

IN THE MATTER OF the Disputes Tribunal Act

BETWEEN ROBERT MURRAY Applicant

ANDTHE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL First Respondent

ANDAMI INSURANCE LTD Second Respondent

ANDSTEVEN BLOM Third Respondent

Hearing: 29 August 2012

Counsel: Appellant in person
D Consedine for Respondent

Judgment: 30 August 2012

JUDGMENT OF MILLER J

[1] On 22 February 2011 a motorcycle ridden by the applicant, Mr Murray, collided with a car driven by the third respondent, Mr Blom. The bare facts as found by the referee in the Disputes Tribunal were that:

This accident occurred in February 2011 on Hornsey Road on a narrow stretch of road with cars parked along the left side of the road heading downhill with yellow lines along the opposite side of the road. The applicant was driving downhill with cars parked to his left. The respondent was riding his motorcycle in the opposite direction heading uphill after coming around a corner. When the two vehicles collided, the respondent was injured and the applicant’s car was damaged on the front right hand side. The Police, who attended the accident later charged the respondent with failing to keep left. This charge was upheld in the District Court in November. The applicant claims $7,429.66 for the loss of the car.

ROBERT MURRAY V THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL HC WN CIV-2012-485-500 [30 August 2012]

[2] Proceedings were brought by Mr Blom and his insurer, AMI. In a decision dated 1 December 2011 the referee found for them, holding that Mr Murray, who was uninsured, had been negligent. Mr Murray was ordered to pay $7,429.66 plus a valuation fee of $97.75. He sought a rehearing, which was refused on 9 February
2012.

[3] Mr Murray did not exercise his right of appeal to the District Court. Rather, he has brought this application for judicial review, challenging both the original decision and the refusal to order a rehearing.

[4] All respondents have chosen to abide the Court’s decision, but given that neither of the other respondents has played a part in this application the Tribunal has appeared through Ms Consedine to assist the Court, for which I am grateful.

The Tribunal’s decision

[5] Proceedings were filed on 10 May 2011. Mr Murray took objection, arguing that AMI should not be heard, objecting to the use of hearsay evidence, and requesting a transfer to the District Court. None of these objections succeeded. It is apparent that the evidence to which he objected included a Police Traffic Crash Report, in which the Police opined that Mr Murray caused the accident through inattention and was riding in the middle of the road after rounding the corner. He also said that he had a counterclaim which he had not yet been able to quantify. He asked that the case be transferred to the District Court. That application was refused, and it appears that he was given three days in which to file his counterclaim. He did not do so, but…

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 The Disputes Tribunal 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: [2012] NZHC 2206
Decision Date: 30 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a motorcycle accident between the applicant, Robert Murray, and the third respondent, Steven Blom. Murray sought damages for his car, which was damaged in the collision, from Blom and his insurer, AMI. The Disputes Tribunal found Murray negligent and ordered him to pay for the damages. Murray sought a rehearing and subsequently applied for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decisions. The court had to determine whether the Tribunal’s decisions were made lawfully and whether they resulted in a plainly unjust outcome. The court found that the Tribunal’s decisions were within its jurisdiction and did not contain any material errors of law. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the Disputes Tribunal had the authority to allow AMI to participate in the proceedings, whether the referee acted improperly by limiting the time for filing a counterclaim, whether the referee relied improperly on the Police Traffic Crash Report, and whether there was an error of substantive law. The court found that the referee did not act improperly in allowing AMI to participate in the proceedings, that the time limit for filing a counterclaim was reasonable, and that the referee did not act improperly in relying on the Traffic Crash Report. The court also found that there was no error of substantive law. The referee’s decision was based on factual considerations that were adequately justified.

The court held that the Disputes Tribunal is a statutory body that is not fertile ground for judicial review, as its decisions are appealable to the District Court and the legislature has chosen to compromise procedural and substantive protections in the interests of access to justice for small claims. Judicial review cannot be used as a substitute for a right of general appeal which the legislature has chosen not to confer. The court found that the Tribunal’s decisions did not result in a plainly unjust outcome and that there was no material error of law. The application for judicial review was dismissed and there will be no order as to costs.

Orders