TAYLOR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZHC 1630

TAYLOR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZHC 1630

The High Court is not precluded in principle from making declarations of inconsistency with the NZBORA (it has jurisdiction in the strict sense), but judicial practice of comity and constitutional considerations counsel restraint; on the facts the respondents' strike out application was dismissed and the proceeding should continue with amendments to parties and pleadings.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 1630
Parties
First Applicant: Taylor; Second Applicant: Hinemanu Ngaronoa; Third Applicant: Sandra Wilde; Fourth Applicant: Kirsty Olivia Fensom; Fifth Applicant: Claire Thrupp; First Respondent: Attorney-General of New Zealand; Second Respondent: Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
11 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Declaration of Inconsistency Under the NZBORA / Interlocutory Strike Out Application
Outcome
Respondents' application to strike out dismissed
Legal Topics
Declaration of Inconsistency, Comity Between Courts and Parliament, Article 9 Bill of Rights 1688, S 7 NZBORA Report, Disenfranchisement of Prisoners, Strike Out Procedure
Constitutional Law Human Rights Electoral Law Administrative Law Prisoners' Rights Declaration of Inconsistency Comity Between Courts and Parliament Article 9 Bill of Rights 1688 +3 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Taylor

First Applicant

Hinemanu Ngaronoa

Second Applicant

Sandra Wilde

Third Applicant

Kirsty Olivia Fensom

Fourth Applicant

Claire Thrupp

Fifth Applicant

Attorney-General of New Zealand

First Respondent

Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Declaration of Inconsistency Under the NZBORA / Interlocutory Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant a declaration of inconsistency under the NZBORA
  2. 2 Whether Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 or the comity principle bars judicial declarations about enacted Parliamentary legislation
  3. 3 Whether the proceeding is an abuse of process or should be struck out as inappropriate in an abstract/stand-alone form

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court is not precluded in principle from making declarations of inconsistency with the NZBORA (it has jurisdiction in the strict sense), but judicial practice of comity and constitutional considerations counsel restraint; on the facts the respondents' strike out application was dismissed and the proceeding should continue with amendments to parties and pleadings.

Court Disposition

Respondents' application to strike out dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents' strike out application dismissed
  • Applicants to file and serve an amended statement of claim within 10 working days naming the Attorney-General as sole respondent and deleting references to the Governor-General and the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections as agreed