Application to strike out — misfeasance in public office — police misconduct — Policing Act 2008 — Ian Quigley v New Zealand Police [2022] NZDC 5276 — New Zealand Defence Force v Berryman [2008] NZCA 392 — Garrett v Attorney-General [1997] 2 NZLR 332 — Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No. 3) [2003] 2 AC 1 — Currie v Clayton [2014] NZCA 511; [2015] 2 NZLR 194 — Peter Elliott v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Constabulary The Times, 5 December 1996 — Cornelius v London Borough of Hockney [2002] EWCA Civ 1073 — Couch v Attorney-General [2008] NZSC 45, [2008] 3 NZLR 725 — Simpson v Attorney-General [1994] 3 NZLR 667 (CA) [Baigent’s Case] — L (A Child) v Reading Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 346, [2001] 1 WLR 1575 — Currie v Clayton [2014] NZCA 511, [2015] 2 NZLR 195 — Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care — New Zealand Police Code of Conduct. The proceedings arose from a traffic accident in which the plaintiff was seriously injured. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had caused him injury by the way in which it investigated and prosecuted the accident. In these proceedings the defendant applied for the matter to be struck out. The strike-out application had come before the Court twice already and had been adjourned both times to allow the plaintiff to engage counsel to help with his claim. Subsequently the plaintiff had amended his statement of claim so that it contained only one cause of action, being misfeasance in public office. The defendant opposed the application on a range of grounds including that there was no reasonable cause of action and that the claim was an abuse of process. The Court examined authorities and found that previously police officers had only been held liable for misfeasance when they had deliberately broken the law or abused their power. The plaintiff could provide no evidence of any deliberate illegality or abuse by the police. The claim was struck out, and the defendant was entitled to costs. Judgment Date: 21 November 2022.