Legal Research
Cases
Roper v Taylor

Roper v Taylor

Case [2023] NZSC 49 12 May 2023

Compensatory Damages

Statutory Interpretation

Unjust Enrichment

Res Judicata

Tort Law

Accident Compensation Law

Type to search within this case.

NOTE: HIGH COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE WITNESS IDENTIFIED IN [13], [64] AND [65] OF THE JUDGMENT IN [2018] NZHC 2330 REMAINS IN FORCE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 16/2022
[2023] NZSC 49

BETWEEN	ROBERT ROPER Appellant
AND	MARIYA ANN TAYLOR First Respondent
ATTORNEY-GENERAL Second Respondent

SC 23/2022
BETWEEN	ATTORNEY-GENERAL Appellant
AND	MARIYA ANN TAYLOR First Respondent
ROBERT ROPER Second Respondent

Hearing:	5 October 2022
Court:	Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Williams and William Young JJ
Counsel:	J F Mather and L M Herbke for Appellant (SC 16/2022) and Second Respondent (SC 23/2022) G F Little, G E Whiteford and T G Little for First Respondent A C M Fisher KC and E N C Lay for Second Respondent (SC 16/2022) and Appellant (SC 23/2022)
Judgment:	12 May 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed. We uphold the conclusion of the High Court Judge dismissing the claim by Ms Taylor for compensatory damages in relation to false imprisonment.

B The cross appeal is dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

(Given by Glazebrook and William Young JJ)

Table of Contents

Para No
Overview	[1]
Factual background	[3]
Procedural history	[6]
High Court judgment	[6]
Court of Appeal (first decision)	[16]
First leave decision of this Court	[26]
Court of Appeal recall and reissue decision	[30]
Second leave decision of this Court	[31]
Legislative history	[33]
The cross appeal	[42]
Ms Taylor’s submissions	[43]
Position of the Attorney-General and Mr Roper	[45]
Our assessment	[46]
The appeal	[52]
Submissions of the parties	[54]
Submissions of Mr Roper and the Attorney-General	[54]
Submissions of Ms Taylor	[56]
Damages for false imprisonment	[57]
Effect of s 317	[58]
Willis	[64]
Conclusion	[71]
Section 21B	[72]
Relevant requirements of s 21B	[73]
Court of Appeal decision	[76]
Legislative history of s 21B	[83]
Section 21B – general comments	[88]
Meaning of “sudden”	[91]
Were the episodes of false imprisonment a gradual process?	[98]
Were the instances of false imprisonment under the extended definition at s 21B(7)(b)?	[99]
Were the episodes of false imprisonment a single event which caused the mental injury?	[101]
Conclusion	[103]
Result	[104]
Appendix: relevant legislation	[107]
1982 ACC Act	[107]
1992 ACC Act	[108]
2001 ACC Act	[111]

Overview

Ms Taylor seeks compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) caused by Mr Roper sexually assaulting and falsely imprisoning her in the late 1980s while both were employed by the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF). On the evidence, her PTSD developed shortly afterwards, albeit that it was not diagnosed until much later and not linked to the assaults until 2015.
The issues in the appeal[1] and cross appeal to this Court relate to the effect of the accident compensation scheme on Ms Taylor’s claim. The relevant legislative provisions are set out in the Appendix to this judgment.

Factual background

[1]“The appeal” should be read as referring to both SC 16/2022 and SC 23/2022.

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 Roper v Taylor

Details

AGLC: Roper v Taylor [2023] NZSC 49
Case: [2023] NZSC 49
Decision Date: 12 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal. The Court held that Ms Taylor was barred from bringing a claim for damages for false imprisonment due to the Accident Compensation Corporation’s (ACC) cover for her mental injury. The Court held that the ACC provided cover for Ms Taylor’s PTSD under the 1982 Accident Compensation Act (1982 ACC Act), and later under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (2001 ACC Act). As Ms Taylor was covered under the ACC for her PTSD, she was barred from bringing a claim for damages for false imprisonment under s 317 of the 2001 ACC Act. The Court held that Ms Taylor’s PTSD was caused by a material contribution of Mr Roper’s actions. The Court held that the Court of Appeal had erred in interpreting s 21B of the 2001 ACC Act. The Court held that Ms Taylor’s PTSD was caused by a “single event” as defined in s 21B(7)(a). The Court held that the Court of Appeal had incorrectly interpreted the meaning of “sudden” in s 21B(7)(a). The Court held that the ACC provided cover for Ms Taylor’s PTSD under s 21B of the 2001 ACC Act. However, this did not affect the Court’s outcome on the false imprisonment claim as Ms Taylor was already covered under the ACC for her PTSD under the 1982 ACC Act.

Orders