Nottingham v Attorney-General

[2024] NZHC 2410

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-706

[2024] NZHC 2410

UNDER

the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

PHILLIP RAYMOND NOTTINGHAM, ROBERT EARLE MCKINNEY and GEORGE BULLOCK

Plaintiffs

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

First Defendant

PATTERSON HOPKINS LAW, WILLIAM PATTERSON and ROBYN HOPKINS
Second Defendants

WARREN ERNEST BEERE

Third Defendant

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

Plaintiffs in person, D Nottingham as McKenzie Friend R Fistonich / D Watson for the First Defendant

L G Cox for the Second Defendants Third defendant in person

Judgment:

27 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE BRITTAIN

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 August 2024 at 12 Midday.

Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………..

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel: Crown Law, Wellington Morgan Coakle, Auckland

NOTTINGHAM v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2024] NZHC 2410 [27 August 2024]

Introduction

[1]        The plaintiffs sue the defendants for defamation, pleading that registration of two caveats on several records of title amounted to publication of defamatory statements.

[2]        The Attorney-General is named as the first defendant on behalf of the Registrar-General of Land and/or his delegates. The Attorney-General has applied for an order striking out the claim against her, or alternatively, for summary judgment. That application is opposed by the plaintiffs and set down for hearing on 14 October 2024.

[3]        The Registrar-General of Land, Robert Muir (Mr Muir), has filed an affidavit in support of the application for strike out/summary judgment, giving brief background evidence regarding the functions and processes of the Office of the Registrar-General under the Land Transfer Act 2017 (LTA), particularly in respect of the registration of caveats.

[4]        The plaintiffs are self-represented. In this judgment, I determine interlocutory applications made informally by the plaintiffs for orders:

(a)rescinding or varying the directions made in my minutes dated 12 and 30 July 2024;

(b)for discovery from the Attorney-General before the Attorney-General’s application for strike out/summary judgment is determined;

(c)that I recuse myself;

(d)that this proceeding be dealt with by a full bench of the High Court and counsel be appointed to assist the Court;

(e)for an order requiring Mr Muir to attend the hearing on 14 October 2024 to be cross-examined; and

(f)for permission for Dermot Nottingham, the plaintiffs’ McKenzie Friend, to present the plaintiffs’ oral and written submissions at the hearing on 14 October 2024.

Background

[5]         The plaintiffs take issue with the Registrar-General’s registration of caveats lodged by the third defendant, which assert a beneficial interest in the subject properties under a cestui que trust. There is a related proceeding involving the plaintiffs and the third defendant and the affairs of the Beere Family Trust.

[6]The Attorney-General relies on the following defences:

(a)qualified privilege, which is not available if the plaintiffs establish that the Registrar-General was predominantly motivated by ill-will towards the plaintiffs or otherwise took improper advantage of the occasion of publication;1

(b)absolute privilege; and

(c)a statutory defence of Crown immunity under s 6 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1950 and s 235…