JIANMING HE V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR HC WN CIV 2008-485-1300
Leave to appeal was granted because the court concluded that the legal questions raised were of general or public importance and both parties did not oppose the other's application, satisfying the statutory test in s116 to submit the issues to the Court of Appeal; no special costs orders were warranted.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-c88d93eb_e78b_4b9b_866d_70e63bd1359c.pdf
- Parties
- Appellant: Jianming He; Appellant: Jinbo Liang; Appellant: Wenhai Liang; Respondent: The Chief Executive of the Department of Labour
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 5 February 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Appeals Under the Immigration Act (appeals From Residence Review Board) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal (leave Granted)
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted to the respondent and leave to cross-appeal granted to the appellants to the Court of Appeal
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Public Importance Test, Residence Review Appeals
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jianming He
Appellant
Jinbo Liang
Appellant
Wenhai Liang
Appellant
The Chief Executive of the Department of Labour
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeals Under the Immigration Act (appeals From Residence Review Board) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal (leave Granted)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the questions of law raised are of general or public importance warranting referral to the Court of Appeal
- 2 Whether leave to appeal under the Immigration Act should be granted
- 3 Whether any special conditions or costs orders should be imposed under the grant of leave
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted because the court concluded that the legal questions raised were of general or public importance and both parties did not oppose the other's application, satisfying the statutory test in s116 to submit the issues to the Court of Appeal; no special costs orders were warranted.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the respondent and leave to cross-appeal granted to the appellants to the Court of Appeal
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted to the respondent to the Court of Appeal
- Leave to cross-appeal granted to the appellants to the Court of Appeal
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
JIANMING HE V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR HC WN CIV 2008-485- 1300 5 February 2009IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV 2008-485-1300IN THE MATTER OF appeals pursuant to section 115 of the Immigration Act 1987 AND IN THE MATTER OF appeals against decisions of the Residence Review Board BETWEEN JIANMING HE Appellant AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR RespondentCIV 2008-485-1845AND BETWEEN JINBO LIANG Appellant AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR RespondentCIV 2008-485-1879AND BETWEEN WENHAI LIANG Appellant AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR Respondent Hearing: 5 February 2009 Counsel: R E Harrison QC for Appellants P McCarthy for Respondents2 Judgment: 5 February 2009JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J[1] The respondent and appellant in each set of proceedings have sought leave to appeal and cross appeal respectively my Judgment of 13 November 2008. Section 116 of the Immigration Act 1992 allows (ss (1)) any party who is dissatisfied with any determination of the High Court, as being erroneous in law, with leave of that Court, to appeal to the Court of Appeal. [2] At ss (2) in deciding whether to grant leave the Court:shall have regard to whether the question of law involved in the appeal is one which by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for its decision.[3] Subsection (3) allows the imposition of conditions whether as to costs or otherwise. [4] Neither counsel oppose the others application for leave to appeal. I agree this is clearly a case whether questions of law raised by both the respondent and appellant are of general importance. I, therefore, grant leave to the respondent to appeal and to the appellant to cross appeal. No special directions or orders as to costs are required. _______________________ Ronald Young JSolicitors: R E Harrison QC, PO Box 1153, Auckland 1140, email: rehqc@xtra.co.nz P McCarthy, Crown Law Office, PO Box 2858, Wellington