Legal Research
Cases
Williams v The Queen

Williams v The Queen

Case [2019] NZHC 754 9 April 2019

Jurisdiction

Res Judicata

Collateral Attack

Constitutional Validity

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Constitutional Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CIV-2018-442-000045

[2019] NZHC 754

UNDER Section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

BETWEEN

PETER ANTHONY WILLIAMS

Plaintiff

AND

THE CROWN NEW ZEALAND ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Defendant

Hearing: 25 March 2019

Appearances:

Mr Williams (Plaintiff) In Person

J M Webber and A R Goodison for Defendant

Judgment:

9 April 2019

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE MATTHEWS

Introduction

[1] Mr Williams sues the Attorney-General in relation to a hearing of a civil proceeding in the Nelson District Court on 3 and 4 October 2012. He was the unsuccessful plaintiff.1 His cause of action in this case is based on s 27 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990.

[2] Mr Williams says that at the hearing counsel for the defendants acted in conflict with and in breach of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Code of Client Care r 13.5, that counsel for the defendants intimidated his counsel, that there was no discovery of or cross-examination in relation to certain emails, and that the defendants’

1 Williams v Cameron DC Nelson CIV-2009-042-000544, CIV-2009-042-000071, 26 October 2012.

WILLIAMS v THE CROWN NEW ZEALAND ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2019] NZHC 754 [9 April 2019]

counsel appeared to act in collusion with “officers of the Court” to ignore the Court’s duty of care and deny the plaintiff a fair hearing in breach of the principles of natural justice. Mr Williams says that “these actions continue to deny us the right of representation by effective counsel”. In argument, it became reasonably clear that the ‘officers of the Court’ referred to include the District Court Judge presiding on 3 and 4 October 2012, but given that Mr Williams is also aggrieved at a decision to hear an interlocutory application in relation to discovery the day after it was filed, it may encompass a broader range of persons, depending on who was involved in the decision to do so.

[3] As I understand Mr Williams’ case, he says that the combined effect of all these matters is that the principles of natural justice were not observed, in breach of s 27:

27 Right to justice

(1)Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.

(2)Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination.

(3)Every person has the right to bring civil proceedings against, and to defend civil proceedings brought by, the Crown, and to have those proceedings heard, according to law, in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals.

[4]Mr Williams seeks:

A public, High Court hearing, to review the Nelson District Court decision 26 October 2012, and consider…

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 Williams v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Williams v The Queen [2019] NZHC 754
Case: [2019] NZHC 754
Decision Date: 9 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Williams v The Crown New Zealand Attorney-General, the plaintiff, Mr Williams, sought a public, High Court hearing to review a Nelson District Court decision from 2012 and consider if Justice may have been misled by evidence. He claimed that the principles of natural justice were not observed in breach of s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and sought damages for loss of income, exemplary damages, costs, and interest. The Attorney-General applied to strike out the proceeding on the grounds that the claim was vexatious and an abuse of process, the claim for damages was barred by Attorney-General v Chapman, and the claim did not disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action. The court found that the claim was a collateral attack on earlier decisions of the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court, and the claim for damages was barred by Attorney-General v Chapman. The proceeding was struck out and the Attorney-General was entitled to costs. The court declined to make an order under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 as it was not satisfied that the making of such an order would come within the jurisdiction of an Associate Judge.

The court held that Mr Williams' claim was a collateral attack on earlier decisions of the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court. The court found that all of the issues raised by Mr Williams in relation to his case in the District Court in October 2012 had been aired subsequently before the District Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. The court held that the present case was an endeavour to raise exactly the same issues that had been raised numerous times before in the guise of an action for breach of s 27 of the Bill of Rights Act. The court found that the claim for damages was barred by Attorney-General v Chapman as compensation cannot be awarded under the Bill of Rights Act in respect of the actions of judges. The court held that judicial immunity is now conferred by a combination of the common law and statute law and the public law cause of action against the Crown, held in Baigent to be implicit in the Bill of Rights Act, would not appropriately be extended to cover the breaches of the judicial branch. The court found that the proceeding was vexatious and an abuse of process and was struck out. The Attorney-General was entitled to costs.

Orders