Opai v Culpan - [2016] NZHC 3005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-092-1026 [2016] NZHC 3005

BETWEEN
MELISSA JEAN OPAI

Plaintiff

AND

LAURIE CULPAN First Defendant

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(sued on behalf of the COMMISSIONER OF POLICE)

Second Defendant

Hearing: 31 October 2016

Appearances:

N W Woods for Plaintiff

No appearance for First Defendant (not required to appear) A Todd and N Ridder for Second Defendant

Judgment:

13 December 2016

JUDGMENT (No.2) OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL
[Plaintiffʼs discovery application against second defendant]

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 December 2016 at 3:00pm
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………………………………….
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Rice Craig (N W Woods/P Amaranathan), Papakura, for Plaintiff
Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Letts (D G Dewar), Wellington, for First Defendant
Crown Law Office (A Todd) Wellington, for Second Defendant

Copy for:
Hugh Rennie QC, Wellington, for First Defendant
Matthew F McClelland QC, Wellington, for Second Defendant
New Zealand Police (N Ridder), Wellington, for Commissioner of Police

OPAI v CULPAN [2016] NZHC 3005 [13 December 2016]

[1] This decision gives rulings on Ms Opai’s discovery application against the second defendant. It is unnecessary to set out the background to this workplace defamation proceeding because that is covered in my decision also given today on applications directed at the parties’ pleadings.1 Ms Opai’s discovery application was extensive. Counsel conferred ahead of the hearing and reached agreement on many issues. In my minute of 31 October 2016 I gave directions by consent as to
discovery. That left two matters:

[a] whether a report as to an investigation into the conduct of another watch-house officer should be disclosed in unredacted form; and

[b] the extent of search terms to be applied to Senior Sergeant Culpan’s

vault emails.

The investigation report

[2] Ms Opai made a complaint about another watch-house officer. Another staff member at the Counties Manukau District Headquarters also complained about the same watch-house officer. Ms Watson, an HR advisor, investigated the complaints and made a report dated 18 June 2013. The second defendant has disclosed the report, but has covered up large parts of it. The Attrorney-General’s grounds for covering up parts of the document are that they are not relevant to the matters in issue in this proceeding and it is necessary to protect the privacy of other staff referred to in the report.

[3] The report runs for 27 pages. The parts that have not been covered up generally refer to Ms Opai having lodged a complaint, describe the matters complained of and recommend that the watch-house officer’s breach of the code of conduct be treated as mid-level misconduct. No information as to the first complaint or the complainant is disclosed. Similarly, information as to the conduct of the investigation into Ms Opai’s complaint and Ms Watson’s findings is not disclosed.

[4] The fact that Ms Opai made a complaint about another watch-house officer has an indirect bearing on two publications in this proceeding. In the first version of the performance appraisal for the…

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 Culpan

Details

AGLC: Opai v Culpan [2016] NZHC 3005
Case: [2016] NZHC 3005
Decision Date: 13 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves a workplace defamation proceeding between Melissa Jean Opai and Laurie Culpan, with the Attorney-General sued on behalf of the Commissioner of Police as the second defendant. The dispute focuses on a discovery application made by Ms Opai against the second defendant. The legal issues before the court were whether a report regarding an investigation into the conduct of another watch-house officer should be disclosed in unredacted form, and the extent of search terms to be applied to Senior Sergeant Culpan's vault emails. The court found that certain parts of the investigation report should be disclosed, specifically paragraphs 116, 153, 163, and 168, as they primarily go to the fact of Ms Opai's complaint and the outcome of the investigation. The court also determined that the search terms for Mr Culpan's vault emails should be "Mel", "Melissa", "Opai", and Ms Opai's QID, as using additional search terms would impose an unnecessary and disproportionate burden on the defendant. The court reserved leave to review the direction for completing discovery if necessary and invited the parties to confer on costs.

Orders