DELIU v THE AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT [2021] NZHC 213

DELIU v THE AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT [2021] NZHC 213

Recusal was refused because the challenged directions were routine case management steps made in the context of telephone mentions and voluminous filings, the applicant's grievances amounted to alleged legal errors not indications of bias, joinder of the Attorney‑General was appropriate, and a fair‑minded informed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] NZHC 213
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Francisc Catalin Deliu; First Defendant/respondent: The Auckland District Court; Second Defendant/respondent: New Zealand Police; Third Defendant/respondent: Attorney-General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Related Civil and Bill of Rights Claims / Case Management (recusal Application)
Outcome
Application for recusal dismissed
Legal Topics
Recusal, Apprehension of Bias, Natural Justice, Joinder of Attorney General, Discovery, Case Management Directions, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Ss 25 and 27
Judicial Review Administrative Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Judicial Conduct/recusal Recusal Apprehension of Bias Natural Justice +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francisc Catalin Deliu

Plaintiff/applicant

The Auckland District Court

First Defendant/respondent

New Zealand Police

Second Defendant/respondent

Attorney-General

Third Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Related Civil and Bill of Rights Claims / Case Management (recusal Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge should recuse from proceedings involving the applicant
  2. 2 Whether alleged failure to give reasons for case management directions constitutes a reasonable apprehension of bias
  3. 3 Whether joinder of the Attorney-General was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

Recusal was refused because the challenged directions were routine case management steps made in the context of telephone mentions and voluminous filings, the applicant's grievances amounted to alleged legal errors not indications of bias, joinder of the Attorney‑General was appropriate, and a fair‑minded informed observer would not have a reasonable apprehension that the Judge would not decide matters on the merits.

Court Disposition

Application for recusal dismissed

Orders

  • Recusal application dismissed
  • Proceedings to continue before Walker J