Attorney General v Chapman

JurisdictionNew Zealand
CourtSupreme Court
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
3 cases
  • Taylor v Attorney-General of New Zealand
    • New Zealand
    • High Court
    • 24 July 2015 the proper role of public law compensation and can it be regarded as indistinguishable from private law damages in tort? 89 In Attorney-General v Chapman 90 the question was whether the remedy could be available in respect of acts of the judicial branch of 60 Although a majority of the S......
  • Currie v Clayton
    • New Zealand
    • Court of Appeal
    • 5 November 2014
    ...damages claim against a prosecutor to cases of mala fides or recklessness. 70 Mr Pike referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Attorney-General v Chapman. 75 He accepted Chapman concerned judicial immunity, but submitted some of the policy reasons that had weighed with the majority in re......
  • AHQ v Attorney-General and another appeal
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 22 June 2015
    ......Section 6(5) of New Zealand’s Crown Proceedings Act 1950 (No 54) (“the NZ CPA”), like s 6(3) of our GPA, is closely modelled after s 2(5) of the UK CPA. In the New Zealand Supreme Court decision of Attorney-General v Chapman [2012] 1 NZLR 462, McGrath and William Young JJ explained the rationale for s 6(5) of the NZ CPA as follows (at [175]): . . … Indeed, we think it clear that the Crown’s vicarious liability in tort does not extend to acts of persons discharging functions of a judicial ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT