Claims also made against health ministry, justice ministry as employer
For an applicant who also made claims against the Ministry of Justice, the New Zealand Court of Appeal denied extensions of time from decisions striking out her proceedings against the New Zealand Police and the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA).
From 2006–10, the applicant in Crichton v Independent Police Conduct Authority [2026] NZCA 374 made personal grievance complaints asserting workplace bullying and discrimination when the justice ministry retained her to work in the courts.
The applicant said she sustained a neck injury from a 2010 car accident, which was allegedly a “set up” linked to cybercrime and workplace bullying and discrimination.
The applicant commenced proceedings against the justice ministry as her former employer. On 7 November 2023, the court struck out these proceedings.
In proceedings against multiple health practitioners and against the Ministry of Health, the applicant alleged that she was refused a caesarean section while pregnant. In 2017 and 2023, respectively, the court struck out these proceedings.
Years later, the applicant continued to state that she was pregnant and needed the intervention of the High Court of New Zealand in her claim before Associate Judge Sussock to save her baby.
From 2010–13, the applicant filed missing persons reports to police regarding a friend whom she believed was a murder victim.
In a complaint before the respondent IPCA, the applicant asserted dissatisfaction with the police response and inaction. She said police did not investigate her reports or take them seriously.
Associate Judge Sussock struck out the applicant’s proceedings against the police, while Associate Judge Gellert struck out her claims against the IPCA.
The applicant applied for extensions of time to appeal from the associate judges’ decisions. The police and the IPCA opposed the applications.
The Court of Appeal rejected the applications for extensions of time upon determining that granting leave to appeal would not serve the interests of justice.
However, the appeal court found it inappropriate to order costs against the applicant, who felt distressed by her experiences.
First, the Court of Appeal considered the applicant’s delay quite lengthy. The appeal court noted that she filed the extension applications 89 working days and 78 working days after the relevant filing deadlines for her proceedings against the police and the IPCA, respectively.
Second, the Court of Appeal said the applicant’s reasons for the delays were not strong and were unable to explain the delays’ full extent. The appeal court noted that her reasons included illness, as well as a damaged and hacked laptop with deleted files.
Third, the Court of Appeal saw the value of finality for all parties involved, given the considerable prejudice to the police and the IPCA.
Fourth, the Court of Appeal ruled that the applicant’s claims lacked prospects of success and were bound to fail due to the absence of merit.
The applicant’s lengthy extension applications – which described her matter as a “Trafficking in persons case, where secret societies are secretly glued to her soul and all her activities” – addressed her concerns since the alleged workplace bullying and harassment.
The appeal court saw no procedural unfairness on the part of the associate judges, who made plainly correct decisions free of error.
Regarding alleged unfairness, the appeal court rejected the applicant’s argument that she was rushed and lacked the opportunity to be heard correctly in the proceeding before Associate Judge Gellert.
The appeal court added that Associate Judge Gardiner was entitled to issue a procedural direction for hearing the applicant’s “application to set aside” and the police strike‑out application together.
Here are some other recent decisions by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand involving employment and labour matters.
Subject to certain conditions, the Court of Appeal issued a 14 May 2026 decision permitting Air New Zealand to appeal on three legal questions identified in its application for leave arising from an Employment Court decision in favour of one of its captains.
In a proceeding involving an attempt to recover wage or holiday arrears, the Court of Appeal made a 25 March 2026 decision granting an application to recall its prior judgment awarding a labour inspector costs, to be paid by a person legally aided at the time.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest employment and labour law news on the main page!
