Gloriavale survivors fail in attempt to sue public servants

| The Post | Wellington Court Reporter |

An attempt has failed to personally sue two men who were senior public servants when the Gloriavale Christian Community’s treatment of children was under scrutiny.

Four people tried to sue for themselves and on behalf of others who had been children at the West Coast community of Gloriavale.

They filed a case suing several government departments, and attempted to sue the two men.

But a judge at the High Court in Wellington has accepted the two men — who cannot be identified — were immune from being sued personally.

The claim alleged the men breached a duty of care to make decisions in the best interests of, and to protect, the children at Gloriavale who had been recognised as “vulnerable”.

Justice David Gendall’s decision said public servants were immune from liability in civil proceedings for actions or omissions in good faith in the course of doing their duty, or intending to do their duties, functions or using their powers.

It protected public servants so they could do their jobs impartially and fearlessly, without being deflected by the threat of being sued, he said.

The immunity would fail if the public servants acted in bad faith, which was more than negligence. A finding of bad faith required a real element of personal dishonesty, ulterior motive, malice or deliberate misconduct, the judge said.

Lawyers for the men said the claim should not be allowed to proceed because it didn’t have a reasonably arguable basis.

The claim dated from events about eight to 10 years ago when representatives of several government departments were supposed to be brought together in response to media and public interest in conduct at Gloriavale.

After about 18 months the group disbanded, with its objectives said to be met and a local group supposed to be in place.

The lawyer for the Gloriavale claimants said the men had a duty to protect vulnerable children and the abuse continued after the group disbanded.

It was alleged the men knew or were reckless in their ignorance of the vulnerability of the Gloriavale children, which was set out in media reports, books, the criminal case against the community’s former leader Hopeful Christian, and other information that government agencies held.

But the judge said the allegations made against the men related to no more than negligence or mild recklessness at most, rather than dishonesty, ulterior motives, malice or deliberate misconduct.

What was alleged did not meet the standard of personal bad faith, or came even close to alleging it, he said.

The judge said the immunity did not stop the Crown being sued, which the Gloriavale claimants were also doing in a case against the attorney-general sued on behalf of five government departments.