Legal Research
Cases
White v Attorney-General

White v Attorney-General

Case [2020] NZHC 740 17 March 2020

Jurisdiction

Misfeasance in Public Office

Breach of Natural Justice

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-715

[2020] NZHC 740

UNDER the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 27(1)

IN THE MATTER OF

Misfeasance in public office

BETWEEN

AMANDA ADELE WHITE

First Plaintiff

ANNE LEOLINE EMILY FREEMAN
Second Plaintiff

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL sued on behalf of the New Zealand Police

Defendant

Hearing: 17 March 2020

Appearances:

Plaintiffs in person

Deborah Harris/Abbey Lawson for the Defendant

Judgment:

17 March 2020

ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL

Solicitors:
Crown Law (D Harris/A Lawson), Wellington, for the Defendant
Copy for
Amanda White and Anne Freeman, Papakura, Auckland

WHITE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 740 [17 March 2020]

[1] In this proceeding, the Attorney-General is sued for misfeasance in public office and for breach of natural justice under s 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Three police officers are the alleged wrongdoers. He applies to strike out the plaintiffs’ statement of claim of 30 September 2019.

Background

[2] The background to the matter involves a civil proceeding which went to trial in 2013. The case is Spence v Lynch, in which Ms White and Mrs Freeman were third parties. Priestley J gave judgment on 19 June 2013.1 Judgment was given against Ms White and Mrs Freeman. They say that the plaintiff in that proceeding, Stuart Spence, a police officer, misled the court. The plaintiffs complained to the police about Mr Spence having misled the Court. In this proceeding they say that three police officers declined to find any misconduct by Mr Spence which should be the subject of criminal charges. They declined to take any action against Mr Spence. In short, the plaintiffs complain that the three police officers are liable for misfeasance in public office in failing to find criminal offending by Mr Spence. One way of considering their claim is that they accuse the police of a “cover up”.

[3] Ms White and Mrs Freeman are daughter and mother. They are the trustees of the DCT Trust. Ms White was in a relationship with Mr Spence for some six and a half years from 2002 to 2008. After their relationship broke up, there were proceedings in the Family Court under the Property Relationships Act.

[4] Mr Spence brought a proceeding to recover some $224,000 which he claimed he had advanced to the trustees of the DCT Trust. At the time there were three trustees, Ms White, Mrs Freeman and Mr Lynch, a lawyer. Initially, Mr Spence sued only Mr Lynch. Mr Lynch, who had retired as trustee by then, joined Ms White and Mrs Freeman as third parties. Mr Spence and Mr Lynch settled. Mr Lynch paid a sum to Mr Spence. Mr Spence discontinued his claim against Mr Lynch but assigned the debt he had claimed to Mr Lynch. The proceeding by Mr Lynch continued against Ms White and Mrs Freeman. The Judge recognised that while the essential contest was between…

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 White v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: White v Attorney-General [2020] NZHC 740
Case: [2020] NZHC 740
Decision Date: 17 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Amanda Adele White and Anne Leoline Emily Freeman sued the Attorney-General for breach of s 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and for misfeasance in public office. They claim that police officers have failed to investigate their complaint that a police officer, Stuart Spence, misled the court in a civil proceeding. They claim the failure to investigate amounts to a cover-up. The plaintiffs seek an order setting aside the decision of Priestley J and claim economic loss, emotional distress and costs. The Attorney-General applies to strike out the statement of claim.

The court found that the pleadings were not sufficient to support the claims. The plaintiffs needed to show that the police acted consciously for an improper purpose. The pleadings did not show that the police acted dishonestly. Instead, the evidence showed that the police had acted on the basis of the court decisions. The court found that the pleadings were not sufficient to support a claim for misfeasance in public office. The claim for breach of s 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 was also struck out. The claim for breach of natural justice was not available to the plaintiffs because the police were not required to observe the principles of natural justice when investigating alleged criminal conduct. The statement of claim was struck out and the proceeding was dismissed.

Orders