Legal Research
Cases
Taylor v Davis

Taylor v Davis

Case [2014] NZHC 2986 24 November 2014

Statutory Interpretation

Election Petitions

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2014-404-2648 [2014] NZHC 2986

IN THE MATTER
of an electoral petition under Part 8 of the

Electoral Act 1993

BETWEEN

ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR, LLOYD NATHAN CURRIE, THOMAS EDMONDS

First, Second and Third Petitioners

JANIE HENI HENARE Fourth Petitioner

EDWARD ROLLO Fifth Petitioner

MIRIAMA ELISABETH WILLIAMS Sixth Petitioner

AND

KELVIN DAVIS First Respondent

THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION Second Respondent

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Third Respondent

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Fourth Respondent

Hearing: (on the papers)

Court: Appearances:

Winkelmann, Heath and Venning JJ

A W Taylor, in person, First Petitioner
R Francois for Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth & Sixth Petitioners
S Mitchell and K K Kommu for First Respondent
D Perkins for Second, Third and Fourth Respondents
A S Butler, amicus curiae

Judgment:

24 November 2014

TAYLOR & ORS v DAVIS & ORS [2014] NZHC 2986 [24 November 2014]

Reasons: 27 November 2014

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 November 2014 at 4.00 pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Introduction

[1] Messrs Taylor, Currie and Rollo and Ms Williams have filed an election petition in respect of the Te Tai Tokerau electoral district. The petition was filed in time.

[2] Section 232 of the Electoral Act 1993 (the Act)1 requires a petitioner to give security for costs. In summary:

(a) Either at the time of presenting an election petition or within three days after the expiration of the time limited for its presentation, the petitioner must give security to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the Court “for all costs that may become payable by the petitioner to any
witness summoned on the petitioner’s behalf or to any respondent”.2

(b)The amount of the security to be given is $1000. Security is provided by recognisance to the Crown entered into by any number of sureties, not exceeding five; or by way of a deposit of money; or a mix of each.3

(c) If no security was given as required by s 232, “no further proceedings

shall be taken on the petition”.4

[3] Security was not provided in time. On 24 November 2014, the Court ruled that there was no jurisdiction to extend the time for security to be given and, as a result, the proceeding was at an end.5 These are our reasons for that decision.

Background

[4] A General Election was held on 20 September 2014. The results of the official count were published in the New Zealand Gazette on 4 October 2014. On

1 Section 232 is set out in full at [10] below.
2      Electoral Act 1993, s 232(1).
3      Section 232(2). The machinery by which security is given and how it is treated by the Registrar is set out at rr 10–12 of the Constituency Election Petition Rules 2008.
4      Section 232(3).
5      Taylor v Davis [2014] NZHC 2939.

7 October 2014, Mr Hone Harawira (Mana Movement), a candidate…

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 Taylor v Davis

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Davis [2014] NZHC 2986
Case: [2014] NZHC 2986
Decision Date: 24 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Taylor v Davis involved an election petition filed by Arthur William Taylor, Lloyd Nathan Currie, Thomas Edmonds, Janie Heni Henare, Edward Rollo, and Miriama Elisabeth Williams against Kelvin Davis, the Electoral Commission, the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, and the Attorney-General of New Zealand. The petitioners sought to challenge the result of the Te Tai Tokerau electoral district election held on 20 September 2014. The primary legal issue the Court had to decide was whether it had the jurisdiction to extend the time for the petitioners to provide security for costs as required by s 232 of the Electoral Act 1993. The Court concluded that there was no jurisdiction to extend the time for providing security for costs. The reasoning of the Court was based on the strict interpretation of the statutory requirements for providing security for costs in election petitions. The Court emphasised the need for timely resolution of election petitions and the fundamental nature of the time limits set for the presentation of petitions and the provision of security for costs. The Court found that the plain language of s 232(3) of the Act, which states that no further proceedings shall be taken on the petition if no security is given as required by the section, left no room for interpretation. As a result, the proceeding was at an end due to the failure of the petitioners to provide security for costs within the stipulated time.

Orders