GEARY V THE PSYCHOLOGISTS BOARD AND ANOR SC 36/2009
The Court refused leave to appeal because the established rule that leave is required for cross-examination in judicial review proceedings is sound and the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds (including a plausible basis for bias) to depart from that rule; accordingly the application for leave to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 36/2009
- Parties
- Applicant: Ian Russell Geary; Respondent: The Psychologists Board; Respondent: Anor
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 24 June 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court (second Appeal)
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Cross Examination of Deponents, Leave to Cross Examine, Bias, Interests of Justice, Leave to Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ian Russell Geary
Applicant
The Psychologists Board
Respondent
Anor
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court (second Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave is required to cross-examine deponents in judicial review proceedings
- 2 Whether the applicant established a sufficient basis to permit cross-examination to explore alleged bias by Board members
- 3 Whether the long-standing rule permitting cross-examination only in rare cases should be overturned
Ratio Decidendi
The Court refused leave to appeal because the established rule that leave is required for cross-examination in judicial review proceedings is sound and the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds (including a plausible basis for bias) to depart from that rule; accordingly the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Costs of $2,500 awarded to the first respondent
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
GEARY V THE PSYCHOLOGISTS BOARD AND ANOR SC 36/2009 24 June 2009IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 36/2009 [2009] NZSC 67BETWEEN IAN RUSSELL GEARY Applicant AND THE PSYCHOLOGISTS BOARD AND ANOR Respondents Court: Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping JJ Counsel: A C Beck for Applicant S C D A Gollin for First Respondent Judgment: 24 June 2009JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the first respondent. REASONS[1] The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the High Court's exercise of discretion refusing him leave to cross-examine certain deponents in his proceeding for judicial review. He now seeks leave for a second appeal to this Court. He wishes to challenge the long-standing rule that leave is necessary to cross- examine a deponent in a judicial review proceeding. We are not persuaded that such a challenge has any prospect of success. The approach which has been taken for many years in New Zealand, namely that cross-examination in judicial review proceedings will be permitted only on rare occasions when required by the interests of justice, is soundly based. Moreover, a similar approach applies in comparablejurisdictions.1 Natural justice considerations and similar concerns are adequately met by the Court's responsibility to grant leave where it is in the interests of justice. [2] In the instant case cross-examination has been sought for the purpose of exploring the possibility of bias on the part of members of the Board but we are satisfied that the Courts below did not err in concluding that the applicant's allegations did not provide a sufficient basis for a departure from the general rule.Solicitors: Gault Mitchell, Wellington for Applicant Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, Wellington for First Respondent1 See, for example, Lord Diplock's statement in O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237 at pp 283– 283 that "it will only be on rare occasions that the interest of justice will require that leave be given for cross-examination of deponents" and Woolf, Jowell and Le Sueur (eds) De Smith's Judicial Review (6th ed, 2007) p 849.