New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assault and battery

Legal area

Court

1 Jul 2020

TAYLOR v ROPER [2020] NZCA 268

Citation

[2020] NZCA 268
Court

Court of Appeal

By majority the Court held s24 Limitation Act 1950 applied on the evidence so accrual was postponed until the claimant ceased to be under a qualifying disability (release following knowledge of convictions in late 2014), rendering the May 2016 proceedings within time; the claimant's mental injury claims arising from assault/battery and negligence are within the ACC scheme so compensatory relief for those causes is barred and only exemplary damages may be pursued, but the false imprisonment cause involved detention that was a substantial cause of psychiatric injury and is not barred by ACC, so…
8 Jun 2020

Lincoln v Attorney-General (redacted version) [2020] NZHC 1252

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1252
Court

High Court

On the facts the Court found Police had reasonable and probable grounds to stop and arrest Lincoln for obstruction while discharging policing duties in response to a report of open carriage of an MSSA in public; psychiatric assessment and subsequent property inquiries were justified; no admissible evidence proved an unlawful assault, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution or trespass; plaintiff's claims dismissed.
10 Feb 2020

LINCOLN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL (NO. 2) [2020] NZHC 118

Citation

[2020] NZHC 118
Court

High Court

The Court accepted the plaintiff's clarified third amended statement of claim and ordered that the only causes of action that remain are causes 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14; all other causes of action are abandoned by consent.
21 Dec 2015

WRIGHT v BHOSALE & ANOR [2015] NZHC 3367

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3367
Court

High Court

The court held the officer committed a battery by seizing and handcuffing the plaintiff; the officer had no legal authority under the Land Transport Act to direct a passenger (the plaintiff) to provide identifying particulars and the resulting arrest was unlawful; the plaintiff was falsely imprisoned from arrest until release on bail, breaching ss18 and 22 BORA; the request for identification did not constitute a s21 BORA search; s23(2) BORA does not confer a pre-charge review right and was not breached; s24(a) BORA was breached at the time of bail and until 9 May 2013 because the plaintiff w…
28 Jun 2013

SIEMER v HERON [2013] NZHC 1604

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1604
Court

High Court

The proceeding was struck out as an abuse of process because the assault claim duplicated earlier stayed or struck out District Court proceedings and was instituted to circumvent prior security for costs orders; the Companies Act claim was untenable against named defendants who are not directors and, as to the director who was a director (Stiassny), the claim should have been raised earlier and may be affected by bankruptcy/transfer to the Official Assignee; accordingly the statement of claim was struck out and costs ordered to follow the event.
2 Jun 2010

FORREST V MARTIN HC CHCH CIV-2009-409-001529

Citation

openlaw-dc1bf2be_b8f3_450f_8423_fa48994f9849.pdf
Court

High Court

Security for costs was ordered because the plaintiff is impecunious with no realistic third‑party means, the merits of several causes were weak or neutral on the material before the Court, and the plaintiff has a demonstrated history of harassing conduct that increases the risk the defendant will be unable to recover costs; balancing factors made an order just, so security of $20,000 was fixed and the proceeding stayed until payment.
30 Mar 2009

GREGORY V GOLLAN AND ORS SC 4/2009

Citation

SC 4/2009
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal dismissed because the matter of jury trials in civil proceedings is governed by s 19A, the courts below applied the correct principles and there was no error of principle warranting a second appeal from an exercise of discretion confirmed twice.
5 Sept 2008

MURRAY V GEBBIE HC WN CIV 2008-485-569

Citation

openlaw-a1b0c28c_3526_4e1c_bfde_83d6ee336730.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held that exemplary damages were available despite the respondent's provocation because the appellant, as a police officer, abused his position and initiated gratuitous physical conduct; provocation justified a reduction in quantum but did not extinguish liability; the District Court's award of $12,000 and declaration of breach of s23(5) BORA were within permissible bounds and were upheld.
16 Nov 2007

KNIGHT V CROWN HEALTH FINANCING AGENCY HC WN CIV-2005-485-2678

Citation

openlaw-ed782967_5acd_4399_b358_25a72d124482.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff's allegations were not proven on the balance of probabilities because his evidence was found unreliable and inherently improbable; accordingly the claim fails and judgment is entered for the defendant.
21 Sept 2006

GREGORY V GOLLAN AND ORS HC AK CIV 2005 - 404-3485

Citation

openlaw-2f200204_7452_45bc_9716_3eda17f6c67a.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found that s19A(5) jurisdiction existed and, exercising its discretion, ordered trial by judge alone because the case raised multiple interdependent causes of action and mixed questions of law and fact (notably implied licence to enter, validity of arrest under s315, and ACC-related limits on damages) such that jury management would be impracticable and unduly time-consuming; the order was granted by a narrow margin.