Sheeran v Masterton District Council - [2025] NZHC 707

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND MASTERTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKAORIORI ROHE

CIV-2024-435-19

[2025] NZHC 707

UNDER the Contributory Negligence Act 1947

BETWEEN

LEON SHEERAN

Plaintiff

AND

MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL

Defendant

Hearing: 17 March 2025

Appearances:

Plaintiff In Person

N Chapman and L Goodwin for Defendant

Judgment:

31 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SKELTON

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff in this proceeding, Mr Leon Sheeran, has brought a claim against the Masterton District Council (the Council) in relation to an injury he suffered to his tailbone when he fell off a council-owned swing in 2019. In the application before me, the Council applies for an order dismissing the claim for lack of jurisdiction or to have it struck out.

Background and Procedural History

[2] Mr Sheeran contends that, whilst he was on a swing at Margaret Street Reserve in Masterton on 7 December 2019, the chain snapped. He claims that the resulting injury was dorsal subluxation of his coccyx, which he submits has had a significant impact on his ability to work as a truck driver and produced related mental health

SHEERAN v MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL [2025] NZHC 707 [31 March 2025]

challenges. I understand from the plaintiff’s medical records put before the Court that his injury was covered by the accident compensation scheme.

[3] In respect of that incident, Mr Sheeran filed a notice of proceeding and statement of claim detailing causes of action purportedly under the Contributory Negligence Act 1947 on 6 August 2024. The statement of claim also alleges breaches of duties owed under the Local Government Act 2002. His original statement of claim sought $1,750,000 in compensation for future lost earnings. He also sought costs.

[4] Following correspondence between the parties, the Council filed an appearance under protest to jurisdiction as per r. 5.49 of the High Court Rules 2016 (HCR) on 24 September 2024. The Council contended the claim was for compensation for personal injury and therefore barred by s 317 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act). On 4 October 2024, the Council then filed an application seeking that either the plaintiff’s claim be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or struck out. Additionally, the Council sought costs. Mr Sheeran opposed these applications.

[5] In my minute of 4 December 2024 (the December Minute), I noted Mr Sheeran’s indication in his submissions that he intended to pursue a claim for exemplary damages under s 319 of the Act.1 I indicated my view that Mr Sheeran, as a self-represented litigant, should be given the opportunity to amend his statement of claim accordingly.2

[6] Mr Sheeran has filed an amended statement of claim dated 31 January 2025. The claim is still stated to be under the Contributory Negligence Act. The amended claim continues to allege negligent breach of various provisions of the Local Government Act3 by failing to adequately maintain the swings in the reserve to an acceptable standard causing damage to Mr Sheeran. He claims loss of future earnings 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sheeran v Masterton District Council 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: [2025] NZHC 707
Decision Date: 31 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sheeran v Masterton District Council involved Mr Leon Sheeran, who brought a claim against the Masterton District Council following an injury to his tailbone from a fall off a council-owned swing in 2019. The Council sought dismissal of the claim for lack of jurisdiction or a strike out order. The court was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the case and if Mr Sheeran had a reasonably arguable claim for exemplary damages under the Accident Compensation Act 2001.

The court found that the claim was barred by section 317 of the Accident Compensation Act, as it arose from a personal injury covered by the Act. The court held that the Act precludes claims for compensatory damages for personal injury, regardless of how the claim is characterised. The court also found that Mr Sheeran did not have a reasonably arguable claim for exemplary damages, as the Council did not consciously appreciate the risk posed by the swing and proceed deliberately and outrageously to run that risk. The court noted that exemplary damages can only be awarded for harm done to the plaintiff, not for harm to the community.

The court granted the Council’s application for dismissal of the claim for lack of jurisdiction and struck out any potential claim for exemplary damages. The court also considered the costs, noting that the defendant was successful but taking into account the plaintiff’s status as a litigant in person. The court directed the parties to endeavour to agree on costs, with a possibility of modest uplift, and to file memoranda if agreement could not be reached.

Orders