Roper v Taylor [2022] NZSC 62 (17 May 2022)

Last Updated: 17 May 2022

NOTE: HIGH COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE WITNESS IDENTIFIED IN [13], [64] AND [65] OF THE JUDGMENT IN M v ROPER [2018] NZHC 2330 REMAINS IN FORCE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 16/2022 [2022] NZSC 62

	BETWEEN	ROBERT ROPER Applicant
	AND	MARIYA ANN TAYLOR First Respondent
		ATTORNEY-GENERAL Second Respondent

SC 23/2022
	BETWEEN	ATTORNEY-GENERAL Applicant
	AND	MARIYA ANN TAYLOR First Respondent
		ROBERT ROPER Second Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	J F Mather and L M Herbke for Applicant (SC 16/2022) and Second Respondent (SC 23/2022) G F Little SC and G E Whiteford for First Respondent A C M Fisher QC and E N C Lay for Second Respondent (SC 16/2022) and Applicant (SC 23/2022)
Judgment:	17 May 2022

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1. Leave to appeal is granted (Taylor v Roper [2020] NZCA 268 reissued 16 December 2021 and Taylor v Roper [2021] NZCA 691).

2. Leave to the First Respondent to cross appeal is granted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

• [1] These applications arise out of civil proceedings brought by Ms Taylor against Mr Roper for sexual assault and false imprisonment while both were employed by the Royal New Zealand Air Force in the late 1980s.
• [2] In December 2020, this Court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal by the Attorney-General and Mr Roper against a decision of the Court of Appeal.^[1] This Court reserved leave for the applicants to make a further application for leave to appeal. This was to allow the applicants the opportunity to apply for recall of the Court of Appeal decision, which did not deal with s 21B of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (ACC Act).^[2]
• [3] The Court of Appeal granted the application for recall and reissued its 2020 judgment.^[3] The Court concluded that s 21B did not apply.
• [4] The issues raised in the appeal are:

(a) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of Willis v Attorney-General^[4] and in its interpretation of s 317 of the ACC Act.

(b) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 21B of the ACC Act.

(c) More generally, the Attorney-General wishes to argue that the Court of Appeal approach is inconsistent with the text, scheme and purpose of the ACC Act.

• [5] Ms Taylor in her submissions indicated that, should leave be granted, she wishes to cross appeal against the holding that she has any entitlement to accident compensation cover at all.
• [6] For the avoidance of doubt, leave is granted for all the issues outlined above to be argued.

Result

• [7] Leave to appeal is granted (Taylor v Roper [2020] NZCA 268 reissued 16 December 2021 and Taylor v Roper [2021] NZCA 691).
• [8] Leave to the First Respondent to cross appeal is granted.

Solicitors:
Albany Legal Limited, Auckland for Applicant (SC 16/2022) and Second Respondent (SC 23/2022)
Davenports City Law, Auckland for First Respondent
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Second Respondent (SC 16/2022) and Applicant (SC 23/2022)

---

^[1] Attorney-General v Taylor and Roper v Taylor [2020] NZSC 152 [SC leave decision]. The decision sought to be appealed against was Taylor v Roper [2020] NZCA 268.

^[2] SC leave decision, above n 1, at [11]. This decision, however, dismissed Mr Roper’s application for leave to appeal on limitation issues: at [10].

^[3] Taylor v Roper [2021] NZCA 691.

^[4] Willis v Attorney General [1989] 3 NZLR 574 (CA).