FIELDING v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 3333

FIELDING v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 3333

Because the applicant's statement of claim failed to particularise the relevant decision‑makers, the precise decisions sought to be reviewed and the jurisdictional basis for review, the Court directed the applicant to file an amended statement of claim, supporting affidavit and memorandum as to jurisdiction by a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] NZHC 3333
Parties
Applicant: Alisohn Joan Fielding; Respondent: New Zealand Police
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
16 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Directions Hearing / Case Management
Outcome
Directions issued requiring amended pleadings and timetable; matter to be relisted for further consideration; judicial conflict disclosed.
Legal Topics
Search Warrant and Seizure, Wilful Trespass Charge, Charge Warning, Independent Police Conduct Authority (ipca) Review, Pleadings Particularity, Judicial Recusal
Administrative Law Criminal Procedure Judicial Review Police Oversight Search Warrant and Seizure Wilful Trespass Charge Charge Warning Independent Police Conduct Authority (ipca) Review +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alisohn Joan Fielding

Applicant

New Zealand Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Directions Hearing / Case Management

  1. 1 Whether the statement of claim specified the relevant decision‑makers with appropriate particularity
  2. 2 Whether the precise decisions sought to be judicially reviewed were adequately pleaded
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has identified the jurisdictional basis for judicial review in respect of each decision

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant's statement of claim failed to particularise the relevant decision‑makers, the precise decisions sought to be reviewed and the jurisdictional basis for review, the Court directed the applicant to file an amended statement of claim, supporting affidavit and memorandum as to jurisdiction by a fixed date and gave the respondent a limited period to file a defence; the judge also disclosed a conflict concerning IPCA matters.

Court Disposition

Directions issued requiring amended pleadings and timetable; matter to be relisted for further consideration; judicial conflict disclosed.

Orders

  • Applicant to file an amended statement of claim, affidavit in support and a supplementary memorandum specifying the jurisdiction for judicial review in respect of each decision by 17 January 2020.
  • Respondent to file and serve any statement of defence within 25 days after service of the amended statement of claim.