Lincoln v Attorney-General

[2020] NZHC 118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2017-409-76

[2020] NZHC 118

UNDER

the Bill of Rights Act 1990

IN THE MATTER

of a claim in tort and breach of s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act

BETWEEN

RICHARD LINCOLN

Plaintiff

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Defendant

Hearing:

10 February 2020

Counsel:

Plaintiff in person

K South and C White for Defendant

Judgment:

10 February 2020

ORAL JUDGMENT (NO. 2) OF CHURCHMAN J

[1]                Having adjourned this matter earlier this morning in order for an opportunity to review the second amended statement of claim filed by Mr Lincoln, it transpires that the document that had been filed  bears little relation to the assurances that     Mr Lincoln had given the Court last week that the only causes of action he wished to proceed on were causes of action 3, 4, 9, 10 and 11.

[2]                When this was pointed out to Mr Lincoln this morning, he submitted a further third amended statement of claim dated today’s date. That statement of claim was essentially the last amended statement of claim dated 11 September 2018, with a number of causes of action struck out in handwriting.

LINCOLN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL (NO. 2) [2020] NZHC 118 [10 February 2020]

[3]                Following further discussions with counsel, the causes of action that still remain are:

(a)3 – which relates to false imprisonment;

(b)4 – which is an allegation of assault and battery;

(c)9 – which is a claim relating to breach of s 23 of the Bill of Rights Act;

(d)10 – an action in trespass;

(e)11 – an action in trespass;

(f)12 – a claim of misfeasance in public office;

(g)13 – a claim of malicious prosecution; and

(h)14 – a claim of trespass and conversion.

[4]                Other than these causes of action, all remaining causes of action are abandoned and that is done by consent.

Churchman J

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch for Defendant cc: R Lincoln