The Attorney-General v Arthur William Taylor and Hinemanu Ngaronoa, Sandra Wilde, Kirsty Olivia Fensom and Claire Thrupp - SC 65/2017
Media releases
Summary
Result
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.
30 August 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed. Mr Taylor accordingly has standing.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
____________________________
A The appellant must pay to the first respondent usual disbursements.
B The appellant must pay the second to fifth respondents costs of $15,000 or such lesser figure as evidenced by invoices produced to the Registrar.
C Any issues arising as to costs in the Court of Appeal in respect of Mr Taylor are to be dealt with in that Court.
27 February 2019
Hearing Transcripts
Related Documents
High Court decision — TAYLOR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2015] NZHC 1706 [24 July 2015]
Leave judgment - leave granted — ATTORNEY-GENERAL v ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR [2017] NZSC 131 [30 August 2017] (PDF 71 KB)
Substantive judgment — ATTORNEY-GENERAL v ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR [2018] NZSC 104 [9 November 2018] (PDF 579 KB)
Additional document — Cost judgment: ATTORNEY - GENERAL v ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR [2019] NZSC 18 [27 February 201 (PDF 221 KB)