Smith v Attorney-General - [2020] NZHC 836

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2019-485-384

[2020] NZHC 836

BETWEEN
MICHAEL JOHN SMITH

Plaintiff

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Defendant

Hearing: 16 March 2020

Appearances:

D M Salmon and D A C Bullock for Plaintiff/Respondent J M Prebble and R J Warren for Defendant/Applicant

Judgment:

11 May 2020

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOHNSTON

Introduction

[1] Mr Michael Smith is suing the Attorney-General on behalf of the Crown. He says that the Crown owes duties to Māori and to him in connection with “climate change”. He says that the Crown has breached these duties. And he says that as a result Māori and he will suffer damage. Mr Smith asks the Court to make declarations as to these matters. He does not claim damages.

[2] The Crown says it does not understand aspects of the claim. In particular, it says that it is not clear as to the basis for or nature of the duties it is alleged to owe to Māori and Mr Smith, and nor is it clear as to how it is said to have breached any such duties. The Crown says that to the extent these matters are not clear Mr Smith’s statement of claim is inadequate, and it seeks an order that he clarify these matters.

SMITH v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 836 [11 May 2020]

[3] Mr Smith says he does not need to provide the Crown with any further clarification, that he has discharged his responsibilities in terms of articulating his case and that his statement of claim is unobjectionable.

[4]On what basis are these competing contentions to be assessed?

Principles

[5] Materially, here is what the High Court Rules 2016 say about the requirements of statements of claim:

5.26Statement of claim to show nature of claim

The statement of claim—

(a)must show the general nature of the plaintiff’s claim to the relief sought; and

(b)must give sufficient particulars of time, place, amounts, names of persons, nature and dates of instruments, and other circumstances to inform the court and the party or parties against whom relief is sought of the plaintiff’s cause of action; and

(c)must state specifically the basis of any claim for interest and the rate at which interest is claimed; and

(d)in a proceeding against the Crown that is instituted against the Attorney-General, must give particulars of the government department or officer or employee of the Crown concerned.

[6] The Law Reports are replete with cases in which parties have sought more explicit pleadings or further particulars of claims, defences or other pleadings, and counsel referred me to several.

[7] For present purposes at least, it appears to me that the leading case is the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Price Waterhouse v Fortex Group Ltd.1 In that case, the Court was dealing with a claim by Fortex against Price Waterhouse, which firm had been its auditors. Fortex alleged that Price Waterhouse had breached a duty —said to be owed in…

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 Smith v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Smith v Attorney-General [2020] NZHC 836
Case: [2020] NZHC 836
Decision Date: 11 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Smith v Attorney-General involves a claim by Mr Michael Smith against the Attorney-General on behalf of the Crown. Mr Smith is alleging that the Crown owes duties to Māori and himself concerning climate change and has breached these duties. The Crown, however, argues that the claim is inadequately pleaded and seeks further particulars to clarify the nature of the duties and the breaches. The court was required to determine whether Mr Smith's statement of claim was sufficiently detailed to state a clear issue and inform the Crown of the case to be met.

The court found that Mr Smith's statement of claim was insufficiently particularised, particularly in relation to the nature of the duties owed by the Crown and the breaches of those duties. The court noted that as a novel claim, it was essential for Mr Smith to provide more detailed information about the duties and the standard required to meet those duties. The court emphasised the importance of properly drawn and particularised pleadings as an essential roadmap for the court and the parties. The court held that Mr Smith's statement of claim did not provide adequate information as to the nature of the duties that he alleges the Crown owes to Māori and himself, or the alleged breaches of any such duty.

Consequently, the court ordered Mr Smith to provide further and better particulars. The court specified that Mr Smith must inform the Crown of the precise nature of the duties, including details as to when any such duties arose, what steps they required the Crown to take or refrain from taking, and whether they are absolute duties or duties to meet a particular standard of care. Additionally, Mr Smith must detail the particular acts or omissions that he alleges constitute breaches of any duty owed by the Crown to Māori or himself. The court reserved the issue of costs and indicated that the Crown, as the successful party, is likely entitled to its costs on a 2B basis.

Orders