Application for damages — summary judgment — nuisance — rutting — non-repair of road — normal wear and tear — non-feasance — Occupier's Liability Act 1962, s 3 — Health Act 1956, ss 23, 29, 33, 123 & 123A — Local Government Act 1974, ss 151, 181-190 & 353 — Local Government Act 2002, s 191 — New Zealand Public Health and Disabilities Act 2000 — District Court Rules 2014, r 12.2 & 15.1 — Attorney-General v Jones [2004] 1 NZLR 433 — Burley v Samoilov HC Tauranga CIV-2003-070-123, 19 October 2006 — Roberts v Hall HC Gisborne M41/85, 5 March 1986 — Edwards v Manukau City Council HC Auckland AP197/92, 5 October 1992 — Geiringer v Attorney-General [1969] NZLR 278 — Hocking v Attorney-General [1963] NZLR 513 (CA) — Greenhalgh v British Railways Board [1969] 2 QB 286 — Maureen Clutterham v Anglian Water Authority 1986 WL 1255324 (EWCA (Civ)) — McGeown v Northern Ireland Housing Executive (1995) 70 P & CR 10 (HL). This was an application for damages for loss to the plaintiff's car, resulting from a road vested in the Far North District Council ("FNDC") falling into disrepair. The defendant, the FNDC, applied for summary judgment against the plaintiff or, alternatively, that the claim be struck out for lack of cause of action. The self-represented plaintiff argued several causes of action: breach of s 23 of the Health Act ("the Act"), relating to general powers and duties of local authorities in respect of public health; breach of statutory duty of the FNDC to take sufficient precautions for the general safety of the public and traffic under the Local Government Act 1974 ("LGA 1974"); breach of s 191 of the Local Government Act 2002 ("LGA 2002"); and breach of duties under the Occupier's Liability Act ("OLA"). The Judge noted that s 23 of the Health Act created a statutory duty but it is not an enforcement provision; s 123A of the Act allows for the Minister of Health to apply to the High Court for a writ of mandamus to compel a local authority to perform its statutory duty, and s 123 allows the Director-General of Health to carry out any duties not performed by the local authority and recover expenses in doing so. Section 33 of the Act, which dealt with abatement orders for nuisance, was possibly relevant but did not allow for a member of the public to seek damages for loss. The Health Act cause of action therefore could not succeed. With regards to the breach of duties under LGA 1974, the plaintiff argued a distinction between misfeasance (where a local authority conducted insufficient repair work) and non-feasance (where no repair work had been done). The Judge agreed that there was a distinction, but that this distinction did not help the plaintiff as the issue of loss suffered makes no difference to the exemption from liability for non-repair of the road under the non-feasance rule. The statutory duty did not create liability for damage caused by failure to meet that duty, and this cause of action could also not succeed. Section 191 of the LGA 2002, preventing a local authority from creating a nuisance or depriving the Crown or any person a right or remedy the person would otherwise have against the authority or person in respect of the nuisance, had no application outside of the subpart and this ground too could not succeed. The OLA cause of action related to "visitors to the property", but the plaintiff could not be a visitor (which had the same meaning as the common law meanings for "licensee" or "invitee") as the road was a public road and he was a member of the public. Having found that none of the causes of action could succeed, the Judge granted summary judgment in favour of the FNDC. Costs could be filed by the FNDC within 10 working days. Judgment Date: 30 June 2020.