Thompson v Canoe Racing New Zealand Incorporated

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-001464

[2023] NZHC 2460

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 and the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for judicial review

BETWEEN

ALAN BLAIR THOMPSON
Applicant

AND

CANOE RACING NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Judgment:

4 September 2023

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

(Remedy)

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 4 September 2023 at 11 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Holland Beckett Law, Tauranga. Maria Clarke Lawyers, Auckland. PW David KC, Auckland.

THOMPSON v CANOE RACING NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2023] NZHC 2460 [4 September 2023]

[1] On 20 June this year, I released a judgment in which I concluded Canoe Racing New Zealand Incorporated suspended Alan Thompson from its membership without affording his right to be heard.1 I also concluded Mr Thompson’s subsequent expulsion was neither unfair nor improper. I invited the parties to reflect on remedy and costs. They have done so.

[2] The parties agree the appropriate remedy is a declaration, albeit they differ (a little) over the wording. They agree costs should lie where they fall. So, I make the declaration below.

Declaration

[3] In September 2020, Canoe Racing New Zealand Incorporated failed to afford Mr Thompson’s right to be heard before suspending him from its membership.

……………………………..

Downs J

1 Thompson v Canoe Racing New Zealand Incorporated [2023] NZHC 1533.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Thompson v Canoe Racing New Zealand Incorporated was heard. Alan Thompson, the applicant, sought judicial review against the respondent, Canoe Racing New Zealand Incorporated, regarding decisions made by the respondent to suspend and subsequently expel him from its membership. The court was required to decide whether the respondent had violated Thompson's right to procedural fairness by failing to provide him with an opportunity to be heard before his suspension and whether his expulsion was unfair or improper.

The court considered whether the respondent had acted in accordance with its own rules and whether it had afforded Thompson a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against him before any disciplinary action was taken. The court also examined whether the expulsion of Thompson was justified and proportionate to the alleged misconduct. The court found that the respondent had failed to provide Thompson with a fair opportunity to be heard before suspending him, which was a breach of procedural fairness. However, the court found that Thompson's expulsion was neither unfair nor improper.

The court concluded that the appropriate remedy in this case was a declaration that the respondent had failed to afford Thompson's right to be heard before suspending him from its membership. The court also noted that the parties had agreed that costs should lie where they fall. The court made the declaration that in September 2020, Canoe Racing New Zealand Incorporated failed to afford Mr Thompson’s right to be heard before suspending him from its membership. The court did not order any further action or compensation, as the parties had agreed on the appropriate remedy and costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

UNDER	the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 and the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017
IN THE MATTER OF	an application for judicial review
BETWEEN	ALAN BLAIR THOMPSON Applicant
AND	CANOE RACING NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED Respondent