Prescott v Thompson (No 2) - [2020] NZHC 1004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-1972

[2020] NZHC 1004

BETWEEN
PETER RICHARD PRESCOTT

Applicant

AND

VIOLET GEORGINA THOMPSON

First respondent

AND

DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND

Second respondent

Hearing: 13 March 2020

Appearances:

The applicant in person

R E Harrison QC for the first respondent Appearance excused for the second respondent

Date of judgment:

15 May 2020

JUDGMENT NO 2 OF PALMER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday 15 May 2020 at 2.00 pm.

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Party/Counsel/Solicitors:
The Applicant
R E Harrison QC, Auckland Richard S Wood, Auckland Crown Law, Wellington

PRESCOTT v THOMPSON NO 2 [2020] NZHC 1004 [15 May 2020]

Summary

[1] Mr Peter Prescott applies for judicial review of decisions by the District Court not to adjourn his claim against his ex-partner, Ms Violet Thompson. But the District Court’s decisions were entirely reasonable and there is no evidence of bias or apparent bias by the judge. I dismiss the application for judicial review.

What happened?

Dispute

[2] Ms Thompson is the trustee of a trust which owns residential rental properties. Mr Prescott and Ms Thompson were in a de facto relationship for two periods of time, most recently from July 2012 to September 2016. After the relationship ended, Mr Prescott brought proceedings against Ms Thompson. He claimed she had made a contractually binding promise that the trust would sell him a property in Huntly at the cost of its purchase in 2015 and would take into account the value of work he did on the property.

District Court proceeding

[3] On 23 July 2018, the proceeding was allocated a one-day hearing on 7 November 2018. Mr Prescott made several attempts to adjourn the fixture:

(a)On 1 August 2018, in an email to the Registry, Mr Prescott said he had a “major hearing” in another proceeding on 14 August 2018 and three others on 16 August 2018, 14 September 2018 and 16 October 2018.1 He cited s 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Bill of Rights), said he would not have adequate time to research and prepare his case and sought an adjournment.

(i)Mr Woodd, for Ms Thompson, submitted the three weeks after the other hearings and before 7 November 2018, a year after his

1 Attachment to email from Peter Prescott to Steve McHugh (Court Registrar) regarding grounds for an adjournment, 1 August 2018, attached to affidavit of Warren Woodd, 16 December 2019 [Woodd Affidavit], at 29.

claim was filed, meant there was no basis for Mr Prescott’s claim of lack of adequate time to prepare.2

(ii)Judge G Harrison declined the application for an adjournment, observing “[t]here is more than enough time for Mr Prescott [to] prepare his case after the conclusion of the earlier hearing on 16/10/2018”.3

(b)On 21 September 2018, in a memorandum to the Court, Mr Prescott requested dismissal of counsel for Ms Thompson and…

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 Prescott v Thompson (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Prescott v Thompson (No 2) [2020] NZHC 1004
Case: [2020] NZHC 1004
Decision Date: 15 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Prescott v Thompson, Peter Prescott sought judicial review of decisions by the District Court not to adjourn his claim against his ex-partner, Violet Thompson. The District Court had scheduled a one-day hearing for Prescott's claim against Thompson, who was the trustee of a trust owning residential rental properties. After the relationship ended, Prescott brought proceedings against Thompson, alleging a contractually binding promise that the trust would sell him a property at the cost of its purchase and consider the value of work he did on the property. The District Court denied multiple adjournment requests by Prescott on the basis that he had ample time to prepare his case. Prescott argued that the denial of his requests for an adjournment amounted to a breach of natural justice and denied him a fair hearing. The High Court found that the District Court's decisions were entirely reasonable, and there was no evidence of bias or apparent bias by the judge. The Court dismissed the application for judicial review and declined the applications to strike out evidence. However, the Court ruled three aspects of Thompson's affidavit as inadmissible. The Court noted that Prescott was clearly litigious, using hyperbolic language to portray himself as a victim and others as oppressors, and warned him of the risk of being considered vexatious in the future.

Orders