Taylor v Roper - [2021] NZCA 691

FOR A COURT READY (FEE REQUIRED) VERSION PLEASE FOLLOW THIS LINK

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA597/2018
[2021] NZCA 691

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

Court:	French, Brown and Clifford JJ
Counsel:	G F Little SC and G E Whiteford for Appellant J F Mather and L M Herbke for First Respondent A C M Fisher QC and E N C Lay for Second Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	16 December 2021 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for recall is granted.

B [2020] NZCA 268 is recalled and reissued.

CThe second respondent must pay the appellant costs for a standard application on a band A basis with usual disbursements

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Brown J)

Introduction

In May 2016 Ms Taylor commenced a civil action against Mr Roper claiming that he sexually assaulted and falsely imprisoned her in the late 1980s at Whenuapai Airbase and, as a result, she suffered mental injury in the form of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Her proceeding was dismissed in the High Court as being time-barred under the Limitation Act 1950 and also barred by the Accident Compensation legislation.[1] Allowing in part an appeal from the High Court judgment, a majority of this Court[2] held that Ms Taylor’s claim was not barred by the Limitation Act. Moreover, the cause of action for false imprisonment in respect of her detention by Mr Roper in a tyre cage and while driving Mr Roper to his home was not a claim for personal injury. Hence it was not captured by the statutory bar in the Accident Compensation legislation.
[1]M v Roper [2018] NZHC 2330.
[2]Taylor v Roper [2020] NZCA 268 [Court of Appeal judgment] per Brown and Clifford JJ, French J dissenting.
The Attorney-General and Mr Roper filed applications to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. The leave panel raised the issue of whether cover might have been available for Ms Taylor via the application of s 21B of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act). The leave panel did not consider it appropriate to hear an appeal on the false imprisonment issue until the parties had had an opportunity to argue the s 21B issue in this Court. Hence on 21 December 2020 the applications for leave were dismissed in order that the applicants could seek a recall of this Court’s judgment to enable the s 21B issue to be ventilated.[3]

The recall application

[3]Attorney-General v Taylor [2020] NZSC 152.

On 5 February 2021 the Attorney-General filed an application for recall of this Court’s judgment on the following grounds:
2.1Section 21B … is relevant to the question of whether the claims for compensatory damages made by appellant, Ms Taylor, are barred by s 317 of the Act;
2.2Cover under s 21B arises independently of cover under s 21 of the Act; and
2.3The…

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 Roper

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Roper [2021] NZCA 691
Case: [2021] NZCA 691
Decision Date: 16 December 2021 at 10.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an application by the Attorney-General and Mr Roper for a recall of the Court's previous decision in Taylor v Roper. The original decision had found that Ms Taylor's claim for damages for false imprisonment was not barred by the Limitation Act 1950 and was also not covered by the Accident Compensation legislation. The current appeal focused on the application of section 21B of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, which provides cover for work-related mental injuries caused by a "single event". The primary legal issues were whether the incidents of false imprisonment were "sudden" events, and whether they arose from the same cause or circumstance and together comprised a single incident or occasion. The Court found that the incidents of false imprisonment were not "sudden" events as they were not unexpected or unforeseen, but rather anticipated and feared by Ms Taylor. Furthermore, the incidents did not arise from the same cause or circumstance and together comprise a single incident or occasion. Consequently, section 21B does not provide cover for the PTSD suffered by Ms Taylor as a consequence of these incidents. Therefore, her claim for compensatory damages for false imprisonment is not statute-barred. The application for recall was granted, and the previous judgment was recalled and reissued. The Attorney-General was ordered to pay Ms Taylor costs for a standard application on a band A basis with usual disbursements.

Orders