11 Feb 2020
The court recorded the parties' agreement that payment of $10,795, accepted as the value of the seized firearms, accessories and ammunition, resulted in the plaintiff abandoning cause of action 12 (misfeasance) and cause of action 14 (trespass and conversion) and that Schedules A and B to the third amended statement of claim were no longer relevant.
20 Dec 2019
Balancing the orthodox nature and apparent weakness of the appeal against the disproportionate and potentially nugatory effect of allowing seizure of the appellant's home (the yacht) for a relatively small debt, the Court granted an interim, limited stay of enforcement preventing seizure of the yacht, allowed without-notice relief due to urgency, and required service and a prompt hearing with leave for respondent to apply to vary or rescind.
1 Sept 2017
Court held placement in the ARU amounted to de facto medical segregation but any s60 breaches were technical and de minimis; seizure of the electric jug was lawful under the Authorised Property Rules and s43 as a proportionate response to a reasonable belief of self-harm and no legitimate expectation existed to retain the jug; Transfer Decision complied with s54 mandatory considerations and was reasonable; use of force and waist restraint during transfer was authorised, proportionate and did not breach NZBORA ss9 or 23(5); overall claims dismissed.