BEGGS AND OTHERS V ATTORNEY-GENERAL (POLICE) AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2000-485-797

BEGGS AND OTHERS V ATTORNEY-GENERAL (POLICE) AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2000-485-797

The r78 application was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the six nominated representatives were clearly aligned with and adequately representative of the six defined groups and failed to show sufficient common issues of fact or law across group members, such that a representative order would risk injustice and prejudice to the defendants.

Citation
openlaw-69d15866_2368_47db_a057_b9e47c9842bf.pdf
Parties
Plaintiffs: Michael J Beggs & others; First Defendant: Attorney-General (Police); Second Defendant: Speaker of the House of Representatives
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (tort and Bill of Rights Act Claims) Application for Representative Proceedings Under Rule 78 High Court Rules / Interlocutory Application for Representative Order; Judgment on R78 Application and Directions for Case Management
Outcome
Application for representative proceedings under Rule 78 dismissed
Legal Topics
Representative Proceedings (rule 78), New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Trespass, False Imprisonment, Malicious Arrest and Detention, Strip Search, Access to Lawyers, Case Management and Trial Selection
Civil Procedure Tort Constitutional Law Human Rights Administrative Law Criminal Law Representative Proceedings (rule 78) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 +6 more

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael J Beggs & others

Plaintiffs

Attorney-General (Police)

First Defendant

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (tort and Bill of Rights Act Claims) Application for Representative Proceedings Under Rule 78 High Court Rules / Interlocutory Application for Representative Order; Judgment on R78 Application and Directions for Case Management

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs have the same interest in the subject-matter under r78
  2. 2 Whether the representative groups are capable of clear definition
  3. 3 Whether there are issues of fact or law common to all members of each proposed group

Ratio Decidendi

The r78 application was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the six nominated representatives were clearly aligned with and adequately representative of the six defined groups and failed to show sufficient common issues of fact or law across group members, such that a representative order would risk injustice and prejudice to the defendants.

Court Disposition

Application for representative proceedings under Rule 78 dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Registrar to endorse this judgment with a delivery time of 10.30am on 27 July 2006.