Print this page

Bruce Brendon van Essen and Jason Patterson v The Attorney-General and others - SC 28/2015

Summary

Civil Appeal – Unreasonable Search and Seizure under New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 ­– Whether Court of Appeal applied correct test for public law remedies – Whether Court of Appeal correctly applied principles in Taunoa v Attorney General – Whether Court of Appeal correct in reliance on Independent Police Conduct Authority reports as a basis for assessing NZBORA compensation – Whether Court of Appeal correct in finding there was a proper basis for obtaining and executing search warrants – Whether Court of Appeal correct in finding that s 27 Crimes Act 1961 conferred immunity on defendants.[2015] NZCA 22  CA 320/2013; CA 339/2013; CA 593/2013; CA 594/2013

Result

A  The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B  The applicants are to pay costs of $2,500 to both:
the first respondent, and  the second and third respondents jointly.
13 July 2015
_________________
Reissued 3 November 2015.
A  The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B  There is no order as to costs.
________________________
We certify that, were it not for s 45(2) of the Legal Services Act 2011, the applicants would have been ordered to pay the second and third respondents jointly costs of $2,500.
15 March 2016

Related Documents

Supreme court decision — costs: BRUCE BRENDON VAN ESSEN v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2016] NZSC 23 [15 March 2016] (PDF 66 KB)

Leave judgment - leave dismissed — BRUCE BRENDON VAN ESSEN v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] NZSC 101    13 July 2015 (PDF 153 KB)

Leave judgment - leave dismissed — reissued 3 November 2015: BRUCE BRENDON VAN ESSEN v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] NZSC 166 [13 July 2015] (PDF 79 KB)

Additional Information

Judgment appealed from

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V VAN ESSEN & ORS CA320/2013 [2015] NZCA 22   24 February 2015