Simpson v Attorney-General
Simpson v Attorney General [Baigent's case] [1994] 3 NZLR 667 is a leading case in New Zealand regarding the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, that upheld damages against the police for an unreasonable search. The decision is significant for multiple reasons. It allows plaintiffs to initiate a cause of action for breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, a previously unavailable remedy. Where a plaintiff has an existing cause of action but feels the remedy is insufficient, they are also able to sue under this ground additionally.
Wikipage redirect
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
keywords
primaryTopic
Simpson v Attorney-General
Simpson v Attorney General [Baigent's case] [1994] 3 NZLR 667 is a leading case in New Zealand regarding the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, that upheld damages against the police for an unreasonable search. The decision is significant for multiple reasons. It allows plaintiffs to initiate a cause of action for breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, a previously unavailable remedy. Where a plaintiff has an existing cause of action but feels the remedy is insufficient, they are also able to sue under this ground additionally.
has abstract
Simpson v Attorney General [Ba ...... as since followed this advice.
@en
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
Wikipage page ID
45,677,138
page length (characters) of wiki page
Wikipage revision ID
998,227,404
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
citations
[1994] 3 NZLR 667
@en
date decided
1994-07-29
full name
Simpson v Attorney General [Baigent's case]
@en
judges
keywords
Negligence, Search and Seizure, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Damages
@en
name
Simpson v Attorney General [Baigent's case]
@en
transcripts
wikiPageUsesTemplate
subject
hypernym
comment
Simpson v Attorney General [Ba ...... nder this ground additionally.
@en
label
Simpson v Attorney-General
@en