TAYLOR & ORS v DAVIS & ORS [2014] NZHC 2986

TAYLOR & ORS v DAVIS & ORS [2014] NZHC 2986

Section 232(3) of the Electoral Act 1993 is mandatory and unqualified; the Election Petition Rules exclude application of High Court Rules to permit an extension; therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to extend time for giving security and, because security was not given in time, no further proceedings could be taken and the petition is at an end.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 2986
Parties
First Petitioner: Arthur William Taylor; Second Petitioner: Lloydnathan Currie; Third Petitioner: Thomas Edmonds; Fourth Petitioner: Janie Heni Henare; Fifth Petitioner: Edward Rollo; Sixth Petitioner: Miriama Elisabeth Williams; First Respondent: Kelvin Davis; Second Respondent: The Electoral Commission; Third Respondent: The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections; Fourth Respondent: The Attorney-General of New Zealand
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
24 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Electoral Petition Under the Electoral Act 1993 / Pre Trial Jurisdictional Ruling on S232 Security for Costs; Application to Extend Time Dismissed; Petition Terminated
Outcome
Informal application to extend time for provision of security dismissed for want of jurisdiction; petition terminated due to non-compliance with s232(1) and (3)
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Time Limits, Jurisdiction to Extend Time, Validation of Irregularities, Operation of High Court Rules Vs Statute, Bill of Rights Access to Justice
Electoral Law Procedural Law Statutory Interpretation Constitutional Law Security for Costs Time Limits Jurisdiction to Extend Time Validation of Irregularities +2 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur William Taylor

First Petitioner

Lloydnathan Currie

Second Petitioner

Thomas Edmonds

Third Petitioner

Janie Heni Henare

Fourth Petitioner

Edward Rollo

Fifth Petitioner

Miriama Elisabeth Williams

Sixth Petitioner

Kelvin Davis

First Respondent

The Electoral Commission

Second Respondent

The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

Third Respondent

The Attorney-General of New Zealand

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Electoral Petition Under the Electoral Act 1993 / Pre Trial Jurisdictional Ruling on S232 Security for Costs; Application to Extend Time Dismissed; Petition Terminated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court had jurisdiction to extend the time for giving security under s232 Electoral Act 1993
  2. 2 Whether High Court Rules r1.5 could cure non-compliance with the statutory security requirement or permit extension of time
  3. 3 Whether s240 or the Bill of Rights Act could justify dispensing with or extending the time to provide security

Ratio Decidendi

Section 232(3) of the Electoral Act 1993 is mandatory and unqualified; the Election Petition Rules exclude application of High Court Rules to permit an extension; therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to extend time for giving security and, because security was not given in time, no further proceedings could be taken and the petition is at an end.

Court Disposition

Informal application to extend time for provision of security dismissed for want of jurisdiction; petition terminated due to non-compliance with s232(1) and (3)

Orders

  • Application to extend time for provision of security dismissed for want of jurisdiction
  • No further proceedings may be taken on the Te Tai Tokerau election petition pursuant to Electoral Act 1993 s232(3)