Taylor v Key - [2014] NZHC 3409

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2014-404-2657 [2014] NZHC 3409

BETWEEN
ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR

Petitioner

AND

JOHN PHILLIP KEY 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: 22 December 2014

Court:

Winkelmann and Heath JJ

Counsel:

A W Taylor, in person, Petitioner
P T Kiely and M S King for First Respondent
D Perkins for Second and Fourth Respondents
A S Butler, amicus curiae (written submissions only)

Judgment:

23 December 2014

JUDGMENT (NO. 2) OF THE COURT

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 December 2014 at 2.00pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

TAYLOR v KEY [2014] NZHC 3409 [23 December 2014]

Introduction

[1] On 22 December 2014, we heard three applications arising out of an election petition lodged by Mr Arthur Taylor, an inmate at Auckland Prison, in respect of the Helensville electoral district. Mr Taylor seeks orders amending his petition, requiring discovery of specified documents from, and the right to interrogate, the successful candidate, The Rt Hon John Key, the Prime Minister of New Zealand.
The petition is set down to be heard on 27, 28 and 29 January 2015.1

[2] During the course of the hearing, we dismissed all but one aspect of the application to amend, but allowed certain allegations to be added as particulars to existing claims in the petition. We reserved our decision on the applications for discovery and the issue of interrogatories.

[3] Mr Butler has been appointed as amicus curiae by the Court. He was not able to attend yesterday’s hearing. We acknowledge the written submissions that he filed, which have been taken into account in the decisions we have made.

[4] We now provide our reasons for making our decisions on the application to amend, and our decisions on the remaining two applications. Given the need for a prompt judgment on all applications, we do not address each argument presented to us, whether by Mr Taylor or counsel for other parties. After summarising the nature of the applications, the grounds on which they are based, and the reasons why they are opposed, we set out our own independent analysis of the competing contentions.

The petition

[5] The petition is brought under s 229(3) of the Electoral Act 1993 (the Act). Mr Taylor challenges Mr Key’s election as Member of Parliament for the Helensville district. Auckland Prison is situated at Paremoremo, a place that is within the
boundaries of that district. While Mr Key challenges Mr Taylor’s standing to

1 Section 235 of the Electoral Act 1993 requires an election petition to be heard by three Judges of the High Court nominated by the Chief Justice. The Court nominated to hear the petition is Winkelmann, Heath and Venning JJ. As Venning J was unavailable on 22 December 2014, all parties agreed that Mr Taylor’s applications could be heard and determined by Winkelmann and…

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 Key

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Key [2014] NZHC 3409
Case: [2014] NZHC 3409
Decision Date: 23 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Taylor v Key involved an election petition brought by Arthur William Taylor, an inmate at Auckland Prison, challenging the election of John Phillip Key as the Member of Parliament for the Helensville district. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, presided by Winkelmann and Heath JJ, heard the case on 22 December 2014 and delivered judgment on 23 December 2014. Taylor sought orders to amend his petition, requiring discovery of specified documents from Key, and the right to interrogate Key. The petition was scheduled to be heard on 27, 28, and 29 January 2015. The court dismissed all but one aspect of the application to amend, allowing certain allegations to be added as particulars to existing claims in the petition. The court reserved its decision on the applications for discovery and the issue of interrogatories.

The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the proposed amendments to the petition were out of time, whether the allegations as to conduct which formed the basis of Taylor's application to amend should be added as particulars of the unlawful endorsements pleaded as illegal practices, and whether the application for discovery should be granted.

The court's reasoning and outcome were as follows: The court found that the proposed amendments, in so far as they were currently formulated in terms of an allegation of corrupt practice, should not be allowed as they articulated new grounds of challenge to those contained within the existing petition, and were sought to be made outside of the 28-day time limit. However, the court considered that the conduct on which Taylor relied to base his allegations of corrupt practices may properly be added as particulars to the allegations of unlawful endorsements, except for the allegation that the video contained false statements by Key. The court also found that there was no need for discovery by Key, at this stage, of documents that are designed to demonstrate the degree of knowledge or awareness that he had of the existence and use of the video. The application for interrogatories was also adjourned for later consideration.

In summary, the court dismissed all but one aspect of the application to amend, allowed certain allegations to be added as particulars to existing claims in the petition, and reserved its decision on the applications for discovery and the issue of interrogatories. Costs were reserved.

Orders