Legal Research
Cases
Wright v Attorney-General

Wright v Attorney-General

Case [2017] NZHC 2865 22 November 2017

Unconscionable Conduct

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-2015-404-2800 [2017] NZHC 2865

BETWEEN
NICHOLAS DAVID WRIGHT

Plaintiff

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE

First Defendant

AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD

Second Defendant

Hearing: 7 November 2017

Appearances:

Nicholas David Wright (self-represented)
S Waalkens and O Klaassen for Attorney-General
A Adams and H Ifwersen for Auckland District Health Board

Judgment:

22 November 2017

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 November 2017 at 10:00am
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

………………………………………………….
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland, for the Defendants

Copy for:
Nicholas David Wright, Plaintiff

WRIGHT v ATTORNEY-GENERAL (NEW ZEALAND POLICE) [2017] NZHC 2865 [22 November 2017]

[1] There are four interlocutory applications:

(a) Mr Wright, the plaintiff, applies for further discovery against the first defendant, the Attorney-General, sued in respect of the New Zealand Police;

(b) he applies for further discovery against the second defendant, the

Auckland District Health Board;

(c) the Attorney-General applies to strike out parts of Mr Wright’s third

amended statement of claim; and

(d) the Auckland District Health Board applies to strike out parts of

Mr Wright’s third amended statement of claim

[2] At the start of the hearing I was advised that the issues between Mr Wright and the New Zealand Police were largely resolved. That was confirmed by a concession Mr Wright made during the hearing. While largely resolved, some rulings were required. Instead, the main contest was between Mr Wright and the District Health Board. During the hearing the scope of additional discovery he sought from the District Health Board narrowed.

[3] Mr Wright says that the Police wrongly arrested him on four occasions,

22 November 2009, 25 March 2012, 1 May 2013 and 23 November 2013. He sues the Police for breaches of rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. He has already sued the Police over his arrest on 1 May 2013. He succeeded in causes of action in tort for assault, battery and false imprisonment, and for breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He received compensatory damages and an additional small sum for his claim under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That was a partial success only.1
He appealed unsuccessfully.2 The Supreme Court refused his application for leave to

appeal.3 Mr Wright largely accepts that his arrest on 1 May 2013 is res judicata and

1      Wright v Bhosale [2015] NZHC 3367.
2      Wright v Bhosale [2016] NZCA 593, [2017] NZAR 203.
3      Wright v Bhosale [2017] NZSC 69.

cannot be relitigated. He believes that there is some point in referring to the 1 May 2013 arrest in this proceeding, but I cannot see any.

[4] The incident on 22 November 2009 when he was detained by the Police resulted in the Auckland District Health Board treating him as a compulsory patient under the…

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 Wright v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Wright v Attorney-General [2017] NZHC 2865
Case: [2017] NZHC 2865
Decision Date: 22 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Wright v Attorney-General, Nicholas David Wright, self-represented, filed a proceeding against the Attorney-General as representative of the New Zealand Police and the Auckland District Health Board, seeking further discovery and asserting claims for breaches of his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The defendants applied to strike out parts of Mr Wright’s third amended statement of claim. The main dispute was between Mr Wright and the District Health Board. The hearing began with the concession that the issues between Mr Wright and the Police were largely resolved. The District Health Board applied to strike out claims for breach of statutory duty and breach of common law duty of care. Mr Wright’s new causes of action were “fresh” and statute-barred. They were also out of time. The District Health Board was not required to disclose documents showing training of individual nurses and doctors who dealt with Mr Wright. Instead, the court required the District Health Board to make further disclosure of documents showing whether the District Health Board generally trains its nurses and doctors on the statutory definition of “mental disorder” and the rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Police disclosed training materials to Mr Wright and he abandoned his claims against the Police. The Attorney-General sought strike out of other paragraphs in the third amended statement of claim, which were no longer required. The court ordered that Mr Wright was not to raise lack of training as a relevant factor for relief. The court ordered that Mr Wright was to pay costs to the Auckland District Health Board and the Attorney-General under category 2 but reduced by one third.

Orders