Hearing:	1 and 2 October 2019 (further material received 16 October 2019)
Court:	French, Brown and Clifford JJ
Counsel:	G F Little SC and G 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:	1 July 2020 at 9 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appellant’s application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal is declined in relation to the ground of appeal identified at [38] but otherwise granted.
BThe appeal is allowed in part. The High Court findings that all the causes of action pleaded in the amended statement of claim are time-barred under the Limitation Act 1950 and that the claim for false imprisonment is barred by the accident compensation legislation are over-ruled. In all other respects, the decision of the High Court is upheld.
CThe proceeding is remitted to the High Court for determination of the appellant’s claim to compensatory damages in respect of the false imprisonment cause of action and the claim for exemplary damages in respect of all four causes of action.
DThe second respondent must pay the appellant costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.
EThe award of costs against the appellant made in the High Court is quashed and the High Court is directed to reconsider costs in light of this judgment.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Para No.

French J (dissenting in part)
Brown and Clifford JJ

[1]
[172]

FRENCH J

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction
Background
The High Court decision
Application for leave to add new grounds of appeal
Did the Judge impose an unfair evidentiary burden on Ms Taylor?
Was the finding that Ms Taylor had not made complaints against the weight of evidence?
Was the finding that Ms Taylor was not frequently locked in the tyre cage against the weight of evidence?
Did the Judge wrongly exclude evidence of misconduct by others?
Was the Judge wrong to find the claims were time barred?

General principles
Accrual of the causes of action
Section 24 — the legal principles
Application of s24 to the facts of this case

Did the Judge err in her application of the accident compensation legislation?
False imprisonment

[1]
[4]
[32]
[35]

[42]

[50]

[63]

[64]
[69]
[69]
[76]
[93]
[102]

[129]
[152]

Introduction

In May 2016, Ms Taylor issued proceedings in the High Court relating to events that took place at Whenuapai Airbase in the late 1980s. Ms Taylor alleged she had been sexually abused and falsely imprisoned during those years and as a result suffered mental injury in the form of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. The case was heard by Edwards J who held the claims were time-barred…

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 [2020] NZCA 268
Case: [2020] NZCA 268
Decision Date: 1 July 2020 at 9 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal is against a decision of the High Court that the claims brought by Ms Mariya Ann Taylor against Mr Robert Roper and the Attorney-General were barred by the Limitation Act 1950 and the Accident Compensation Act 1982. Ms Taylor alleged that Mr Roper sexually abused and falsely imprisoned her in the late 1980s. She brought her claim in 2016, 27 years after she left the Air Force. The High Court held that the claims were time-barred and barred by accident compensation legislation. Ms Taylor appeals against those findings and some findings of fact. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. The claims were not time-barred and the claim for false imprisonment was not barred by accident compensation legislation. The case is remitted to the High Court for determination of the appellant’s claim for compensatory damages in respect of the false imprisonment cause of action and for exemplary damages in respect of all four causes of action. The award of costs against the appellant made in the High Court is quashed and the High Court is directed to reconsider costs in light of this judgment.

Orders