Woolley v Marlborough District Council - [2024] NZHC 3081

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WAIHARAKEKE ROHE

CIV-2020-406-015

[2024] NZHC 3081

BETWEEN
PHILIP JOHN WOOLLEY

Plaintiff

AND

MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL

Defendant

Hearing: 3 September 2024

Appearances:

P A Morten and M Robertson for Plaintiff A C Harpur and N Ravaji for Defendant

Judgment:

23 October 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 October 2024 at 3.00 pm pursuant to rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

WOOLLEY v MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL [2024] NZHC 3081 [23 October 2024]

[1] For many years the plaintiff, Mr Woolley, has been engaged in litigation with the Marlborough District Council (the Council) in the Environment Court, the District Court, and the High Court about events that occurred between 2014 and 2015 in relation to his then dairy farm at Glenmae. There have also been related proceedings between Mr Woolley and Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd (Fonterra) in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal.1

[2] In this proceeding Mr Woolley is seeking damages from the Council, alleging tortious interference with the supply contract between him and Fonterra, tortious interference with his milking contract with the CN and CV Perrott Partnership, a “wrongful combination” by unlawful means, negligence and breach of statutory duty. In summary, Mr Woolley considers that officers of the Council exercised its regulatory powers in an unlawful manner with the intention of bringing about the closure of his dairying operations and were successful in doing so.

[3] The parties were ordered to provide standard discovery. As a result of Mr Woolley’s dissatisfaction with the discovery provided by the Council he made several applications.

[4] In a judgment of 21 December 2023 (the main judgment) I determined applications by Mr Woolley for orders:2

(a)setting aside the Council’s claims to privilege or confidentiality in 38 documents;

(b)declaring that litigation privilege claimed by the Council in respect to documents prepared for a prosecution taken against him in the Environment Court had expired;

(c)that the Council provide further and better discovery in 23 categories of documents;

1 Woolley v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd [2021] NZHC 2690; and Woolley v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd [2023] NZCA 266, [2023] 3 NZLR 405.
2 Woolley v Marlborough District Council [2023] NZHC 3840, (2023) 26 PRNZ 437 [main judgment].

(d)that Mr Woolley be granted access to the Council’s computer systems to ensure compliance with its discovery obligations;

(e)that an unless order be made in Mr Woolley’s favour; and

(f)that Mr Woolley be granted leave to cross-examine certain Council officers on the hearing of his application.

[5] I dismissed all of Mr Woolley’s applications, except to the limited extent that I disallowed some of the Council’s claims to privilege in a small number of documents.

[6] During the hearing of that application Mr Woolley’s counsel raised the issue of disclosure of metadata of documents held in the Council’s electronic databases. I made directions for…

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 Woolley v Marlborough 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: [2024] NZHC 3081
Decision Date: 23 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Woolley v Marlborough District Council involved Mr. Woolley, who sought damages from the Marlborough District Council for alleged tortious interference and other claims related to his dairy farm at Glenmae. The case had a history of litigation between the parties and related proceedings with Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd. The core dispute centered on the adequacy of the Council's discovery process, specifically in relation to searches for documents and metadata. The plaintiff, Mr. Woolley, sought leave to appeal the High Court's decisions dismissing his applications for further discovery and metadata.

The legal issues focused on whether Mr. Woolley had identified arguable errors of fact or law that warranted an appeal under Section 56(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The court considered the adequacy of the searches conducted by the Council for documents and metadata, and whether these searches were sufficient under the circumstances. The court also examined the relevance and importance of the proposed grounds of appeal, the delay caused by the litigation, and whether granting leave to appeal would serve the interests of justice.

The court found that while some of Mr. Woolley's proposed grounds of appeal were arguable, the overall case did not warrant granting leave to appeal. The court noted the significant delay in the proceedings and the potential for further unnecessary prolongation if leave were granted. However, considering the arguable errors identified and the potential for resolving discovery issues more directly, the court decided to grant leave to appeal but emphasized that the Council could address the issues voluntarily or through further court orders.

Regarding costs, the court awarded costs to the Council for Mr. Woolley's unsuccessful application to cross-examine two officers, the main judgment dismissing his discovery applications, and the metadata judgment. The court reduced the Council's costs due to its failure to provide timely evidence of its discovery efforts, which prolonged the proceedings. Ultimately, the court set the case down for a telephone case management conference to expedite the trial, regardless of the appeal.

Orders