Underhill v Auckland Transport - [2015] NZHC 2946

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-404-000286 [2015] NZHC 2946

BETWEEN
WAYNNE UNDERHILL

Appellant

AND

AUCKLAND TRANSPORT Respondent

Hearing: 23 November 2015

Appearances:

Appellant in person
K England for Respondent

Judgment:

24 November 2015

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie on 24 November 2015 at 3.00pm
pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………..

Counsel:
K England, Auckland Transport

Copy to: W Underhill

UNDERHILL v AUCKLAND TRANSPORT [2015] NZHC 2946 [24 November 2015]

Introduction

[1] Mr Underhill seeks leave to appeal against two decisions of the District

Court, one given by Judge D Sharp in the District Court at Manukau on 24 August

2015, and the other given by Judge C Ryan in the District Court at Auckland on 28

August 2015.

Factual background

[2] In 2009 and 2010 the Manukau City Council issued five infringement notices against Mr Underhill, three for not displaying a current warrant of fitness, and two for not displaying a current certificate of registration, all on a motor vehicle.

[3] These infringement notices were prosecuted by the Manukau City Council. It seems that Mr Underhill did not take part. He says he was in custody at the time.

[4] On some date, which is unknown, Mr Underhill made an application under s

78B of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 to have the matters re-heard. On 31

March 2014 this application was granted, and the previous orders made by the

District Court were cancelled.

[5] By 2014, the respondent, Auckland Transport, had come into existence. It became the prosecutor.

[6] In April 2014 the infringement notice process was effectively started afresh. Mr Underhill denied responsibility and requested a hearing. That hearing was held before Justices of the Peace on 19 September 2014. They found that all infringement notices were proven.

[7] On 25 September 2014 Mr Underhill appealed to the District Court. His appeal was heard before Judge Sharp on 17 August 2015 and on 24 August 2015, Judge Sharp issued a reserved decision delivering the same.

[8] Mr Underhill now seeks leave to appeal that decision to this Court.

[9] The hearing before Judge Ryan related to two infringement notices. The first was issued on 15 August 2014.

[10] It alleged that Mr Underhill had operated a private vehicle on a road when the vehicle was not displaying evidence of a current vehicle inspection.

[11] On 13 October 2014 another infringement notice was issued. It alleged that Mr Underhill had parked a motor vehicle on an area which was reserved and signposted as a loading zone.

[12] Unchallenged evidence of the offending was given by parking wardens before Justices of the Peace at a hearing on 18 February 2015. The Justices of the Peace found the offences proven. Mr Underhill appealed and Judge Ryan declined the appeal. Mr Underhill seeks leave to appeal her decision as well.

[13] Mr Underhill, both before the Justices, and before Judges Sharp and Ryan, argued that 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Underhill v Auckland Transport 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: [2015] NZHC 2946
Decision Date: 24 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Underhill v Auckland Transport involved Mr. Wayne Underhill, who sought leave to appeal against two decisions of the District Court related to multiple infringement notices issued to him for vehicle-related offences. The respondent, Auckland Transport, was the entity responsible for prosecuting these matters. The High Court was tasked with determining whether Mr. Underhill's applications for leave to appeal to the High Court against the District Court's decisions should be granted. The primary legal issues before the court were whether Mr. Underhill's appeals involved matters of general or public importance, or whether there had been a miscarriage of justice that warranted a second appeal.

The court found that Mr. Underhill's arguments concerning the validity of the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, the Constitution Act 1986, and the Land Transport Act 1998 were not new or of general or public importance. These arguments had been repeatedly considered and dismissed by various courts, including the Court of Appeal, which had previously found them to be an abuse of court process. The court further noted that Mr. Underhill had already been granted a re-hearing for the 2009 and 2010 matters, and that he had not demonstrated any miscarriage of justice as he had a full opportunity to present his case during these re-hearings. The court concluded that there was no merit in Mr. Underhill's arguments and denied his applications for leave to appeal. In addition, the court ordered Mr. Underhill to pay costs to Auckland Transport, citing his persistent and abusive litigation conduct.

In summary, the High Court dismissed Mr. Underhill's applications for leave to appeal against the District Court's decisions, finding no miscarriage of justice or matters of general or public importance. The court reiterated the settled position on the validity of New Zealand's constitutional and legislative framework, and ordered Mr. Underhill to pay costs to the respondent.

Orders