WRIGHT v ATTORNEY-GENERAL sued in respect of the NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 18 [26 January 2021]

WRIGHT v ATTORNEY-GENERAL sued in respect of the NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 18 [26 January 2021]

Recusal was refused: prior case management or error did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias. Most interrogatories were objectionable because they sought opinions, privileged material, evidence of how defendants will prove their case, or matters irrelevant to pleaded NZBORA issues; interrogatories must be limited to factual matters necessary and not oppressive. The Police and DHB were permitted to answer a limited set of specified factual interrogatories; in‑house counsel may verify answers but police counsel must file a supplementary affidavit describing inquiries made. The Attorney‑General in respect of the Ministry of Health is not liable for the DHB's independent actions...

Citation
[2021] 2 NZLR 201
Parties
Plaintiff: Nicholas David Wright; First Defendant: Attorney‑General sued in respect of the New Zealand Police; Second Defendant: Auckland District Health Board
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
26 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding Under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (arrest, Detention, Compulsory Treatment) / Interlocutory — Disputed Interrogatories and Case Management (pre‑trial)
Outcome
Recusal refused; most interrogatories disallowed as unnecessary, oppressive, privileged or evidential; limited interrogatory answers ordered; Ministry/Crown interrogatories refused; amended statement of claim ordered and procedural timetable set.
Legal Topics
Interrogatories and Discovery, Recusal, NZBORA Rights (arrest/detention/search/seizure/medical Treatment), Natural Justice, Litigation Privilege, Crown and Crown Entity Liability
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Law Criminal Procedure Mental Health Law Interrogatories and Discovery Recusal NZBORA Rights (arrest/detention/search/seizure/medical Treatment) +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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas David Wright

Plaintiff

Attorney‑General sued in respect of the New Zealand Police

First Defendant

Auckland District Health Board

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceeding Under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (arrest, Detention, Compulsory Treatment) / Interlocutory — Disputed Interrogatories and Case Management (pre‑trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether judge should recuse (apprehension of bias)
  2. 2 Scope and proper form of interrogatories under High Court Rules
  3. 3 Who may swear/verifying affidavits for corporate/Crown defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Recusal was refused: prior case management or error did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias. Most interrogatories were objectionable because they sought opinions, privileged material, evidence of how defendants will prove their case, or matters irrelevant to pleaded NZBORA issues; interrogatories must be limited to factual matters necessary and not oppressive. The Police and DHB were permitted to answer a limited set of specified factual interrogatories; in‑house counsel may verify answers but police counsel must file a supplementary affidavit describing inquiries made. The Attorney‑General in respect of the Ministry of Health is not liable for the DHB's independent actions...

Court Disposition

Recusal refused; most interrogatories disallowed as unnecessary, oppressive, privileged or evidential; limited interrogatory answers ordered; Ministry/Crown interrogatories refused; amended statement of claim ordered and procedural timetable set.

Orders

  • Attorney‑General (Police) to file and serve by 12 Feb 2021 an affidavit by in‑house lawyer addressing inquiries made and answering specified interrogatories: notice 2 June 2020 interrogatories 1(a), 2 (facts only), 11, 16 (as limited at para [53]), 17, 18, 19 (first part only) and 43 (first part only)
  • Auckland District Health Board to file and serve by 12 Feb 2021 an affidavit by general counsel answering notice 19 Aug 2020 interrogatories 9, 12 (second part only), 13 and 14