Strike out application — challenge of police search warrant — no reasonable arguable cause of action — costs — Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 20 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The plaintiff was a self-represented litigant suing the New Zealand Police for damages, alleging a search warrant executed at her property was invalid and that during the execution of the search and her arrest the police had physically assaulted her. The plaintiff, who was heavily pregnant at the time of the search, was arrested for obstruction. The Crown applied to strike out the claim and sought summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff has no reasonably arguable cause of action, and if the proceeding continued the plaintiff would be unable to pay the costs of the defendant if she was unsuccessful. The plaintiff prepared her own statement of claim that had many errors in it, both legal and in fact, and it was determined that the plaintiff was receiving advice from a third party whose identify the plaintiff refused to provide. The plaintiff's primary argument was that the police breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) and allegations in tort alleging assault and battery, wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. The two police officers present at the search, senior detectives, submitted a different factual account of the event, stating they provided a facsimile of the original search warrant and undertook a warrantless search under s 20 of the Search and Surveillance Act when they discovered a small amount of cannabis and a cannabis bong, unrelated to the original search warrant. In considering the Crown's application for a strike out, the Judge noted that it can only succeed if the pleaded cause of action is clearly untenable, entirely speculative and without foundation, and weighed against the high threshold set by the principles of natural justice. The Judge found the warrant to search the property was valid and that there was no arguable cause of action under the NZBORA or in tort. For that reason, the Judge struck out the plaintiff's claim. Costs were left to lie where they fell. Judgment Date: 18 January 2018.