Opai v Attorney-General - [2018] NZHC 2267

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2014-092-1026

[2018] NZHC 2267

BETWEEN
MELISSA JEAN OPAI

Plaintiff

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Defendant

Hearing:
2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 July 2018

(Closing submissions filed 20 July 2018)

Counsel:

N W Woods and P Amaranathan for Plaintiff

M F McClelland QC and N S Ridder for Defendant

Judgment:

30 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 August 2018 at 3:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Rice Craig (Papakura) for Plaintiff
Crown Law (Wellington) for Defendant

OPAI v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2018] NZHC 2267 [30 August 2018]

Introduction

[1] Ms Opai sues the Attorney-General on behalf of the New Zealand Police in defamation.

[2] Ms Opai worked on the Public Counter at the Counties Manukau Police Station. She alleges defamatory statements were made about her by members of the Police, particularly by Senior Sergeant Laurie Culpan (S/Sgt Culpan), who was for a time Ms Opai’s manager as the Officer-in-Charge of the Counties Manukau Police Station. Ms Opai brings five causes of action, alleging various publications of five defamatory documents or statements.

Background

[3] Ms Opai began working for the Police in 2005. In most respects, she appears to have been a model employee. The diligence and responsibility she brought to her role in the Public Counter was commended by her superiors.

[4] However, it also appears that her sense of responsibility caused friction with other staff at the counter, which in turn became a cause for concern for the station’s management. It seems Ms Opai took issue with the professionalism of other staff members and felt obliged to make two formal complaints about their timekeeping habits. One was made in December 2012, the other in January 2013.

[5] In March and May 2013, Ms Opai sent a pair of emails expressing concerns about the employment of two other staff members. Ms Opai was herself the subject of a complaint about her own timekeeping in November 2013. She raised an employment relationship problem in the same month, relating to what she perceived as an unfair performance review which is the subject of the first cause of action.

[6] I make it clear that in setting out these events I do not criticise Ms Opai. It is just that the events occurred and her managers had to respond to them. Ms Opai’s complaints go to how they responded.

[7] S/Sgt Culpan was seconded to the role of Officer-in-Charge in February 2013 when Ms Opai’s regular manager, S/Sgt Traill, was sent on a professional development opportunity. One of the tasks he had to perform was Ms Opai’s annual review. This is a formal process which includes completing a standard document. There is space for general comments. Procedure required a draft of the review document to be provided to Ms Opai for her comment. In this case, Ms Opai…

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 Opai v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Opai v Attorney-General [2018] NZHC 2267
Case: [2018] NZHC 2267
Decision Date: 30 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Melissa Jean Opai sued the Attorney-General on behalf of the New Zealand Police in defamation. She alleged that defamatory statements were made about her by members of the Police, particularly by Senior Sergeant Laurie Culpan (S/Sgt Culpan), who was for a time Ms Opai’s manager as the Officer-in-Charge of the Counties Manukau Police Station. Ms Opai brought five causes of action, alleging various publications of five defamatory documents or statements. The first was a draft performance review, the second a briefing paper, the third a 258 report, the fourth section meetings, and the fifth diary notes. The Court found the five causes of action to be without merit and dismissed them all. The defendant was awarded costs. Ms Opai’s appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

Orders