Attorney General v Chapman
| Jurisdiction | New Zealand |
| Date | 2012 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
3 cases
-
Taylor v Attorney-General of New Zealand
...is 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
...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
... ... 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 nature ... ...