Legal Research
Cases
Wright v Attorney-General

Wright v Attorney-General

Case [2019] NZHC 3046 21 November 2019

Jurisdiction

Limitation Periods

Specific Performance

Unconscionable Conduct

Res Judicata

Standing

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

[2019] NZHC 3046

UNDER the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908

IN THE MATTER

of public tort proceedings relating to

breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act

BETWEEN

NICHOLAS DAVID WRIGHT

Plaintiff

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

First Defendant

THE AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD

Second Defendant

Hearing: 2 September 2019

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person

W R Potter and S A Rankin for the First Defendant
A M Adams and H H Ifwersen for the Second Defendant

Judgment:

21 November 2019

JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 November 2019 at 2:00 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors / Parties:
The plaintiff, Mr N D Wright
Mr W R Potter and Mr S A Rankin, Meredith Connell, Auckland Ms A M Adams and Ms H Ifwersen, Meredith Connell, Auckland

WRIGHT v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2019] NZHC 3046 [21 November 2019]

[1] The defendants apply to review the decision of Associate Judge Bell dated 5 February 2019 not to grant security for costs.1 As the proceeding predated the coming into force of the Senior Courts Act 2016, review by a judge is available under the former Judicature Act 1908 and High Court Rules 2008 (as amended).2

[2] Before the Associate Judge and on this review, the expectation was that security, if ordered, would not be provided and so an order will prevent the case proceeding to trial. Perhaps reflecting that, the merits were traversed in an unusual level of detail for a security for costs application.

The proceeding and application for security for costs

[3] The plaintiff’s civil proceeding against the Attorney-General, as representative of the Police, and the Auckland District Health Board (ADHB) claims that his arrest by Police on the night of 22 November 2009 and subsequent detention by the ADHB in the Acute Mental Health Unit at Auckland Hospital from 23 November 2009 to 9 December 2009 was unlawful and breached his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). Separately, he claims that he was unlawfully arrested by Police on three further occasions in 2012 and 2013.

[4] The proceeding was commenced in 2015. After pleading and discovery complications, the defendants applied for security for costs in 2017. Following a four day hearing in 2018, Associate Judge Bell delivered a detailed judgment dismissing the ADHB’s application and, in relation to the claims against Police, ordering that the plaintiff is not required to give security for costs for his claims for the first and second arrests, striking out references to the third arrest and ordering security of $7,500 for the claim for the fourth arrest, failing which he could not give evidence about it at the hearing. These latter orders in favour of the Police are not in issue on review.

[5] It was common ground that…

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 [2019] NZHC 3046
Case: [2019] NZHC 3046
Decision Date: 21 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an application by the defendants, the Attorney-General and the Auckland District Health Board, to review a decision by Associate Judge Bell not to grant security for costs in a proceeding brought by the plaintiff, Nicholas David Wright, alleging unlawful arrest and detention in breach of his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The defendants contended that the Associate Judge’s decision not to order security for costs was plainly wrong, among other grounds. The court considered the discretion to order security for costs in the context of the plaintiff’s right of access to the court, the defendants’ interest in being paid costs if they successfully defend the proceeding, the nature of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act claims and its impact on costs if the defendants are successful, whether the plaintiff had acted as a responsible litigant, and an impression of the merits of the claims. The court concluded that the decision not to order security was not plainly wrong, and dismissed the applications for review.

Orders