Bridge v The King - [2025] NZSC 113

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 63/2025
[2025] NZSC 113

BETWEEN	DEBORAH JANE BRIDGE Applicant
AND	THE CROWN Respondent

Court:	Williams, Kós and Miller JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	8 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant emailed intended proceedings to the Registrar of the High Court at Wellington. The proposed causes of action were negligence, false imprisonment and defamation. The respondent in the intended proceedings was simply “the Crown”, although at various points specific Crown agencies as well as individuals were identified.
The first cause of action claimed that the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora (the Ministry) had acted negligently in relation to the steps taken to restrict movements in response to the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. It alleged that as there was no adequate evidence to support the existence of such an epidemic, the Ministry and various other agencies and individuals acted negligently.
The second cause of action related to antibiotics the applicant had been prescribed which, she alleges, contained “toxic magnetic graphene oxide” harmful to her health. This was also a claim in negligence, but seemed to relate to legislation governing the safety of medicines rather than the individual who prescribed the medicine to the applicant.
The third ground pleaded defamation perpetrated by various government agencies, Associate Professor Siouxsie Wiles and some media outlets, the defamatory statement being that the applicant was a “conspiracy theorist”.
The fourth cause of action alleged that the applicant had been “unlawfully de-‍registered” from all healthcare facilities in the entire Tararua District.
The final cause of action was in false arrest. The applicant described an incident in which she was arrested by police in a public space and in view of others. The alleged arrest was for not wearing a mask. The applicant alleged further that she was required to undertake a psychological assessment before being released without charge.
The Registrar referred the matter to Churchman J for consideration under r 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016, the Registrar believing it was “plainly an abuse of the process of the court” in terms of r 5.35A. On 7 February 2025, Churchman J struck out the purported proceeding on multiple bases, including failure to identify relevant defendants or respondents, failure to identify viable causes of action and failure to identify any form of relief the Court was capable of granting.[1]
[1]Bridge v The Crown [2025] NZHC 89.
The applicant appealed and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that “the [High Court] Judge’s analysis of [the applicant’s] pleaded claim as inadequate and irremediable is orthodox”.[2]
[2]Bridge v The Crown [2025] NZCA 246 (Mallon, Jagose and Grice JJ) at [8].
The Court summed up the position in the following terms:[3]
[14] [The applicant’s] proposed claim thus was not “founded on seriously arguable non-trivial harm”; it was not “tenable”. Her argument she…

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 Bridge v The King

Details

AGLC: Bridge v The King [2025] NZSC 113
Case: [2025] NZSC 113
Decision Date: 8 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Deborah Jane Bridge sought leave to appeal the decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, which dismissed her appeal against the striking out of her intended proceedings against the Crown. The applicant's proposed causes of action were negligence, false imprisonment, defamation and other related claims. The Court of Appeal had held that the applicant's claim was wholly untenable and irremediable.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the applicant's appeal involved a matter of general or public importance, or whether there was a risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice unless the appeal was heard. The Court needed to decide whether it was in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal and hear the proposed appeal.

The Supreme Court held that it was not necessary in the interests of justice to hear and determine the proposed appeal. The Court saw no reason to depart from the views expressed by the lower courts that the applicant's claim was wholly untenable. The Court found that the appeal involved no matter of general or public importance and there was no risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice occurring unless the appeal was heard.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. There was no order as to costs.

Orders