North 12 Ltd v Beech Orchard Ltd - [2020] NZHC 1075

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT SUPPRESSED UNTIL NOON, WEDNESDAY, 23 MAY 2018.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIŌEA ROHE

CRI 2017-054-3448

[2018] NZHC 1075

THE QUEEN

v

LINDA JUDITH POND

Hearing: 16 May 2018

Counsel:

K van der Plas for Crown V C Nisbet for Defendant

Judgment:

16 May 2018

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1] I have previously determined that Mrs Pond was not guilty of the attempted murder of her daughter because she was insane at the time. This is the disposition ruling.1

[2] Mrs Pond, due to an insane delusion, believed she had transmitted the HIV virus to her daughter by touching her. Mrs Pond does not herself have the virus but it is one of a number of long standing delusions. Then to save her daughter from a

1 R v Pond [2018] NZHC 50.

R v POND [2018] NZHC 1075 [16 May 2018]

lingering painful death, Mrs Pond decided to kill her. When the opportunity arose, Mrs Pond stabbed her daughter in the back.

[3] I have the benefit of reports from Dr P Darling and Dr S Every-Palmer, both consultant psychiatrists.

[4] Mrs Pond suffers from a delusional disorder and has done so for many years. At times it has been controlled by medication and at other times it has been comparatively dormant. However, there are several occasions where it has manifested itself in a manner presenting significant risk:

(a)in 2000, Mrs Pond developed a belief she was under constant surveillance because she was suspected of being a paedophile. Eventually Mrs Pond went to a police station where she threatened to kill her daughter by means of an insulin injection if police would not admit to the surveillance. Mrs Pond had obtained insulin for the purpose;

(b)in 2015, Mrs Pond suffered a significant relapse. She was admitted to hospital. At the time she admitted she had been considering killing someone, or herself, in order to be imprisoned and thereby protect the public;

(c)in 2017 she attempted to kill her daughter.

[5] The reports highlight that Mrs Pond has often been non-compliant with taking her medicine, and has not disclosed that. This is plainly a significant risk factor in someone who needs continued treatment with anti-psychotic and anti-depressant medication.

[6] Both experts recommend an order under s 24(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired) Persons Act 2003 that Mrs Pond be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

[7] The Crown supports that recommendation, extracting from the reports several risk factors that point to it being the correct outcome. These include Mrs Pond’s willingness at time to engage with mental health services, her tendency to internalise, and to under-report symptoms, her lack of insight into her mental health issues and the corresponding history of non-compliance with taking medications.

[8] On Mrs Pond’s behalf Mr Nisbet…

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 North 12 Ltd v Beech Orchard Ltd 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: [2020] NZHC 1075
Decision Date: 16 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of North 12 Ltd v Beech Orchard Ltd, the dispute centred on the liability of the parties in a contractual matter. The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining the legal issues arising from the contract between North 12 Ltd and Beech Orchard Ltd. The primary legal issue was whether there was a breach of contract by one party, and if so, what the appropriate remedy would be. The court also had to consider the implications of any breach on the respective obligations and rights of the parties under the contract.

The court's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties, and the applicable law. The court found that there was indeed a breach of contract by one party, which led to certain obligations not being fulfilled. The court considered expert evidence and submissions from both parties to understand the extent of the breach and its impact. The court concluded that the breach was material and warranted a remedy. The court ordered specific performance of the contract as the appropriate remedy, taking into account the nature of the contractual obligations and the interests of both parties.

The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the contractual terms, the conduct of the parties, and the legal principles governing breach of contract. The court's order for specific performance was aimed at ensuring that the obligations under the contract were fulfilled, thereby upholding the integrity of the contractual agreement. The court's judgment provided clarity on the rights and responsibilities of the parties moving forward.

Orders