SIMPSON v FAMILY COURT AT TAURANGA [2023] NZHC 1574

SIMPSON v FAMILY COURT AT TAURANGA [2023] NZHC 1574

The judicial review applications are dismissed: there is no evidence Judge Cook was biased or predeter-mined; the Family Court was entitled to confirm the s 133 report order (it was not a new order) and could reasonably form the view the s 133(6) criteria were met; judicial review of s 133 orders is restricted to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] NZHC 1574
Parties
Applicant: Simpson; First Respondent: Family Court at Tauranga; Second Respondent: Hamilton
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
23 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Family Court Decisions Under the Care of Children Act 2004 / Determination on the Papers; Final Judgment Dismissing Applications
Outcome
Applications CIV-2022-470-122 and CIV-2022-470-123 dismissed
Legal Topics
Recusal, Judicial Review of Interlocutory Orders, Section 133 Psychological Reports, Delay and Child's Sense of Time, Apparent Bias, Expert Evidence
Family Law Administrative Law Child Welfare Recusal Judicial Review of Interlocutory Orders Section 133 Psychological Reports Delay and Child's Sense of Time Apparent Bias +1 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simpson

Applicant

Family Court at Tauranga

First Respondent

Hamilton

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Family Court Decisions Under the Care of Children Act 2004 / Determination on the Papers; Final Judgment Dismissing Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Judge Cook was disqualified by apparent bias or predetermination and should recuse
  2. 2 Whether the Family Court's order under s 133 Care of Children Act 2004 to obtain a psychological report was unlawful or unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether judicial review is an appropriate remedy for a s 133 order given statutory scheme and appeal restrictions

Ratio Decidendi

The judicial review applications are dismissed: there is no evidence Judge Cook was biased or predeter-mined; the Family Court was entitled to confirm the s 133 report order (it was not a new order) and could reasonably form the view the s 133(6) criteria were met; judicial review of s 133 orders is restricted to clear‑cut errors or bias and is unavailable here; delay did not render the s 133 order unlawful and the remedies sought lack utility.

Court Disposition

Applications CIV-2022-470-122 and CIV-2022-470-123 dismissed

Orders

  • Applications CIV-2022-470-122 and CIV-2022-470-123 dismissed
  • No recusal ordered for Judge Cook