Legal Research
Cases
Wright v Attorney-General

Wright v Attorney-General

Case [2021] NZHC 1478 21 June 2021

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Human Rights Law

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

[2021] NZHC 1478

BETWEEN
NICHOLAS DAVID WRIGHT

Plaintiff

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL as representative of the NEW ZEALAND POLICE

First Defendant

AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD

Second Defendant

Hearing: 17 May 2021

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person

W Potter and B Rorrison for the First Defendant
D McLellan QC and H Ifwersen for the Second Defendant

Judgment:

21 June 2021

JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 June 2021 at 4:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

WRIGHT v ATTORNEY-GENERAL as representative of the NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 1478 [21
June 2021]

Introduction

[1] Mr Wright sues the first defendant, the Attorney-General in respect of the Police, for his arrest on 22 November 2009 and his arrest on 25 March 2012. He sues the second defendant, the Auckland District Health Board (the Board), for his compulsory detention and treatment as a patient, in late 2009, under Part 1 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

[2] Mr Wright began this proceeding in 2015. A trial is scheduled to begin on 4 October 2021.

[3] In June and August 2020, Mr Wright served on each defendant notices requiring them to answer interrogatories. The defendants answered some of the interrogatories but objected to others. Mr Wright challenged some of the defendants’ answers and did not accept the objections.

[4] Associate Judge Bell directed hearings to decide the various interrogatory disputes. He delivered judgment on 26 January 2021. He required the defendants to answer some, but not most, of the interrogatories that were in issue.

[5] On 4 February 2021, Mr Wright applied under s 26P of the Judicature Act 1908 to review the Associate Judge’s decision.1 On 11 March 2021, Mr Wright applied under r 8.38 for orders requiring certain interrogatories to be answered. The defendants oppose both applications.

Mr Wright’s substantive cases against the defendants

[6] At the time Associate Judge Bell heard argument, and delivered judgment, Mr Wright’s cases against the defendants were found in a third amended statement of claim dated 11 September 2017. Mr Wright has since filed a fourth amended statement of claim dated 19 March 2021.

1 Section 26P continues to apply, despite the repeal of the Judicature Act 1908 by the Senior Courts Act 2016, by reason of this proceeding’s vintage. See Senior Courts Act 2016, s 186 and sch 5, cls 10(1) and 11.

[7] Given that Mr Wright is seeking to review a judgment that was made by reference to his third amended statement of claim, I will summarise Mr Wright’s case as it was in that claim. When I address the interrogatories that remain in issue, I will consider the implications of the changes made in Mr Wright’s fourth amended statement of claim.

Third amended statement of claim

[8] Mr Wright sues the Attorney-General (in respect of the Police) for two…

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 [2021] NZHC 1478
Case: [2021] NZHC 1478
Decision Date: 21 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Wright v Attorney-General concerns the plaintiff, Nicholas David Wright, who is suing the Attorney-General for the Police and the Auckland District Health Board for various alleged breaches of his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The case involves two arrests and a period of compulsory detention and treatment under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. The court was required to decide on the legality and relevance of interrogatories served by Mr Wright on the defendants, and whether the Associate Judge's decisions on these matters should be reviewed or if further interrogatories should be ordered. The court also had to determine if the Associate Judge should be recused on the grounds of bias.

The court found that the Associate Judge's decisions on the interrogatories were largely correct. The Judge had rightly determined the matters in issue by reference to the pleadings, and that the in-house lawyers for the defendants were appropriate to make the affidavits verifying the answers to interrogatories. The court rejected Mr Wright's argument that certain individuals should answer the interrogatories directly. The interrogatories that the defendants were required to answer were relevant to the issues raised in the pleadings, and those that were deemed irrelevant were either about evidence or related to systemic issues not pertinent to Mr Wright's claims. The court also dismissed Mr Wright's request for the recusal of the Associate Judge, finding no basis for the allegations of bias.

Regarding the application for further interrogatories, the court exercised its discretion under rule 8.38 not to order them, finding that Mr Wright had no valid reason for not asking these questions earlier, and that requiring the defendants to answer further interrogatories would be oppressive given the impending trial. Each of Mr Wright's applications was declined, and the defendants were awarded costs.

Orders