BARTLETT & OSBORNE v DISTRICT COURT & COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2017] NZHC 2848 [9 November 2017]

BARTLETT & OSBORNE v DISTRICT COURT & COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2017] NZHC 2848 [9 November 2017]

The proceeding was struck out because the plaintiffs had effectively discontinued the judicial review after the lead plaintiff's conviction and imprisonment and had failed to comply with timetable directions such that the scheduled fixture could not proceed; striking out was necessary to avoid wasting hearing time and costs were properly awarded to the respondent under the ordinary rule on discontinuance.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 2848
Parties
First Plaintiff: Guy Bartlett; Second Plaintiff: Donna Osborne; First Defendant: The District Court; Second Defendant: The Commissioner of Police
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
9 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Strike Out at Duty Judge Stage Following Conviction of Plaintiff
Outcome
Proceeding struck out
Legal Topics
Examination Under Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009, Strike Out for Non Compliance With Timetable Orders, Costs on Discontinuance, Prejudice to Criminal Trial
Judicial Review Civil Procedure Criminal Law Asset Forfeiture/recovery of Criminal Proceeds Examination Under Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009 Strike Out for Non Compliance With Timetable Orders Costs on Discontinuance Prejudice to Criminal Trial

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Guy Bartlett

First Plaintiff

Donna Osborne

Second Plaintiff

The District Court

First Defendant

The Commissioner of Police

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Strike Out at Duty Judge Stage Following Conviction of Plaintiff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the examination order should be impugned pending criminal trial
  2. 2 Whether the judicial review proceeding was moot or purpose spent after conviction
  3. 3 Whether failure to comply with timetable directions justified striking out the proceeding

Ratio Decidendi

The proceeding was struck out because the plaintiffs had effectively discontinued the judicial review after the lead plaintiff's conviction and imprisonment and had failed to comply with timetable directions such that the scheduled fixture could not proceed; striking out was necessary to avoid wasting hearing time and costs were properly awarded to the respondent under the ordinary rule on discontinuance.

Court Disposition

Proceeding struck out

Orders

  • Proceeding struck out
  • Costs awarded against the plaintiffs to the Second Defendant (Commissioner of Police)