Bradfield v Attorney-General

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2019-485-334

[2019] NZHC 1508

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 and Part 30 of the High Court Rules

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for judicial review of a decision made by or on behalf of the Chief of Navy

BETWEEN

CRAIG ANTHONY BRADFIELD

Plaintiff

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

First Defendant

CHIEF OF NAVY
Second Defendant

DAVID JOHN FAIRWEATHER

Third Defendant

Hearing: 26 June 2019

Counsel:

C J Griggs and C M Kenworthy for plaintiff S V McKechnie for defendants

Judgment:

28 June 2019

RESULTS JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

[1] In these judicial review proceedings, commenced on 17 June 2019, Mr Bradfield has filed an application for interim orders under s 15 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 to prevent his notified dismissal from the Royal New Zealand Navy taking effect on Monday, 1 July 2019.

BRADFIELD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2019] NZHC 1508 [28 June 2019]

[2] I heard counsel on the interim orders application in circumstances of considerable urgency on the afternoon of Wednesday, 26 June 2019. At the conclusion of the hearing, I warned counsel that the extent of my other commitments as Duty Judge this week might preclude the completion of a reasoned judgment on the application before a decision was required by today.

[3] That has proven to be the case and I am accordingly issuing a results judgment with the intention of providing reasons for it as soon as other commitments allow.

[4] I decline the application for interim orders. I do so on terms that no steps that the Navy might take between release of this judgment and final determination of the application for judicial review can have any bearing on the merits of the substantive argument, or on the scope of any relief. By way of example, if a new bassoonist is employed hereafter, then that circumstance could not have any bearing on the appropriate relief if grounds for review are made out.

[5] I will endeavour to produce the reasons for this decision in the course of next week.

Dobson J

Solicitors:
Stephens Lawyers, Wellington for plaintiff/applicant Simpson Grierson, Wellington for defendants/respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the plaintiff, Craig Anthony Bradfield, sought interim orders to prevent his notified dismissal from the Royal New Zealand Navy from taking effect. This case was heard in Wellington Registry and was brought before Justice Dobson. The defendants were the Attorney-General, the Chief of Navy, and David John Fairweather. Bradfield argued that the decision to dismiss him was unlawful, and the court was required to decide whether interim orders should be granted to prevent the dismissal from proceeding while the substantive application for judicial review was determined.

The court considered the urgency of the application and the potential impact of the dismissal on Bradfield's rights and interests. The legal issues centred on whether the court should grant interim orders to halt the dismissal pending the outcome of the substantive judicial review application. The court had to balance Bradfield's right to be free from unlawful administrative action against the potential harm to the Navy if the dismissal were to be stayed. The court concluded that the application for interim orders should be declined, but it imposed conditions to ensure that any actions taken by the Navy between the judgment and the final determination of the substantive application would not prejudice the merits of the case.

Justice Dobson issued a results judgment declining the application for interim orders. The court emphasised that any steps taken by the Navy between the release of the judgment and the final determination of the application should not influence the merits of the substantive argument or the scope of any relief. The court also made it clear that if a new bassoonist were employed after the judgment, this would not affect the appropriate relief if grounds for review were ultimately established. The reasons for the decision were to be provided as soon as possible. This judgment ensures that Bradfield's rights are protected while also considering the operational needs of the Navy.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

UNDER	the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 and Part 30 of the High Court Rules
IN THE MATTER OF	an application for judicial review of a decision made by or on behalf of the Chief of Navy
BETWEEN	CRAIG ANTHONY BRADFIELD Plaintiff
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Defendant CHIEF OF NAVY Second Defendant DAVID JOHN FAIRWEATHER Third Defendant

Hearing:	26 June 2019
Counsel:	C J Griggs and C M Kenworthy for plaintiff S V McKechnie for defendants
Judgment:	28 June 2019