15 Dec 2006
GORDON: OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL V GRAEME MURRAY SEXTON, RUSSELL BIERRE, MARK BUTTIMORE, JOHN TREGIDA HC HAM CIV 2006-419-1765
- Citation
- openlaw-c77dde21_e61b_4e58_8322_1e803a0f178b.pdf
- Court
- High Court
Application dismissed because the applicant's core legal arguments had no real prospect of success: habeas corpus does not apply to animals; Anton Piller relief was misconceived where impoundment was lawful; the Dog Control Act covers the conduct and registration of dogs (and the animal described was objectively a dog), and novel sovereignty and definitional claims cannot place the applicant outside the law of New Zealand; consequently no interim mandatory injunction was justified and costs were ordered against the applicant.