Murray v Gisborne District Council HC Wellington CIV-2010-485-743 [2011] NZHC 1236 (30 March 2011)

Last Updated: 31 October 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

_{CIV-2010-485-743}

UNDER the Human Rights Act 1994, s 124

BETWEEN JOHN CARNE MURRAY Appellant

AND GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent

Hearing: 9 March 2011

(Heard at Wellington)

Counsel: J C Murray in Person

D J O'Connor for Respondent

P J Gunn for The Human Rights Review Tribunal

Judgment: 30 March 2011

_{JUDGMENT OF JOSEPH WILLIAMS J}

In accordance with r 11.5, I direct the Registrar to endorse this judgment with the delivery time of 2.00pm on the 30th March 2011.

Solicitors:

Mr J Murray, PO Box 19495, Avondale, Auckland 1746

Elvidge & Partners, PO Box 609, Napier

_{Crown, Law Wellington}

JOHN CARNE MURRAY V GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL HC WN CIV-2010-485-743 30 March 2011

[1] On 3 June 2010 I struck out the appellant’s appeal against a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal dated 31 March 2010. In that decision the Tribunal overturned the Gisborne District Council’s refusal to disclose certain information to the appellant. The appellant also sought an award of damages which the Tribunal declined. Mr Murray appealed but failed to serve the Gisborne District Council in time. I struck the appeal out on the basis of the then recent Court of Appeal decision

in Attorney General v Howard.[1] Mr Murray (who appeared by leave with a

McKenzie friend Mr Andrew Grieve) sought leave to appeal my decision.

[2] Counsel for both the Council and the Tribunal appeared in opposition to the application. By the terms of s 124(3) of the Human Rights Act this court may grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal if the question of law involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for a decision.

[3] In Snee v Snee[2], the Court of Appeal summarised the relevant principles in this useful way:

... the appeal must raise some question of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument in a case involving some interest, public or private, of sufficient importance to outweigh the cost, both to the court system and to the parties, and the delay involved in the further appeal.

[4] I agree with the respondent that there is simply no question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. The question of whether there is jurisdiction to extend the time for filing and serving a notice of appeal was recently and relevantly decided in Howard. I do not see how any good purpose would be served by attempting to relitigate so recent an authority.

[5] Mr Murray filed a brief written submission after the application for leave to appeal was heard. It is clear from this, and from comments made by him during the hearing, that his real concerns are not related to the non-disclosure at all. In it

_{Mr Murray submits:}

Birt [the Council official the focus of Mr Murray’s concerns] is now retired to the Hibiscus Coast and he has left a debt of around $20,000 of ratepayer money spent. According to Mr O’Connor the purpose of the Tribunal hearing was to prevent Birt from being branded as a criminal.

McKenzie [Council chief executive] now has to explain this spend up to

Meng Foon and the councillors.

I am claiming from the Council the money that Birt had received as an inducement from Origen.

The purpose of a Court of Appeal hearing application is to ascertain if

Meng Foon and the councillors will authorise funds for the defence of Birt.

[6] Whatever the merits of the proposed appeal against my decision of 3 June

2010, it is clear that Mr Murray’s real objective in pursuing this matter has

absolutely nothing to do with the issues raised in that appeal. [7] The application for leave is dismissed accordingly.

[8] Mr O’Connor for the Council seeks costs. He says I made no award of costs in the 3 June decision and now “enough is enough”. I agree. The Council will be entitled to costs on a Category 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements.

_{[9] The Tribunal, appropriately, does not seek costs.}

Joseph Williams J

---

[1] _{[2010] NZCA 58.}
[2] [1999] NZCA 252; (1999) 13 PRNZ 609 at [601-604].