New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adequacy of judicial reasons

Legal area

Court

13 Aug 2021

LU v THE CROWN [2021] NZHC 2121

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2121
Court

High Court

The High Court found the District Court judge provided adequate, contextual reasons engaging with the evidence (consistency with prior statements, contemporaneous messages, complainant's cross‑examination, and the complainant's naivety on sexual matters); the judge properly applied the beyond‑reasonable‑doubt standard, accepted the complainant on charges one, two and four, but correctly declined to find penetration proved on the rape charge due to evidential uncertainty; therefore no miscarriage of justice occurred and the appeal was dismissed.
22 Jul 2021

MEN v R [2021] NZHC 1860

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1860
Court

High Court

The appeal succeeds in part: the trial judge's reasons were insufficient to support convictions on the five representative charges because they risked conflating incidents proven for specific charges with those alleged in representative counts; those convictions are set aside and a new trial is ordered for the representative charges. The convictions on the specific charges and the sentence of three years and two months' imprisonment are upheld as not manifestly excessive.
10 Oct 2019

MAUNGAHARURU-TANGITU TRUST v HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 2576

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2576
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeals because the Environment Court failed as a matter of law to give adequate, site-specific reasons and to undertake the statutory analysis required by the RMA (including consideration of giving effect to higher order documents and s32/32AA matters) before balancing landowner and tāngata whenua interests; the Environment Court also relied on unforeshadowed oral evidence in relation to MTT88, causing procedural unfairness. The appropriate remedy is to remit the matters to the Environment Court for redetermination with directions reflecting the agreed scope of rec…
1 Mar 2018

HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 288

Citation

(2018) 20 ELRNZ441
Court

High Court

The High Court found the Environment Court's decision lacked adequate reasons on matters central to the appeals, allowed the appeals, set aside the decision to the extent it failed to give adequate reasons, and remitted the matter to the Environment Court for rehearing and for that Court to make findings and give reasons on jurisdiction, scope and assessment of the Alternative Solution including Man O'War criteria and identified consequential matters.
24 Mar 2017

RABSON v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2017] NZHC 540

Citation

[2017] NZHC 540
Court

High Court

The Commissioner lawfully declined jurisdiction because the complaint effectively sought to challenge or call into question judicial decisions and directions recorded in the Minute which were judicial acts subject to appeal or judicial review; consequently the judicial review proceeding had no realistic prospect of success and was properly struck out with indemnity costs awarded.
24 Sept 2010

LOCKWOOD AND WADHAM GOODMAN TRUSTEES LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE ISLAND TRUST V BOSTIK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED CA CA381/2009

Citation

openlaw-a403fb95_9700_426d_9a5f_e3cdf21b990b.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal and remitted the proceeding to the High Court because Andrews J gave inadequate reasons when rejecting the appellants' evidence on the falsity of the representation; on the material before her she lacked an adequate basis to dismiss the expert evidence and failed to properly assess product literature, expert evidence and the reactivation issue; the High Court must reconsider whether the representation was false, addressing causation and reactivation evidence.

New Zealand Case Law

LU v THE CROWN [2021] NZHC 2121

MEN v R [2021] NZHC 1860

MAUNGAHARURU-TANGITU TRUST v HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 2576

HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 288

RABSON v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2017] NZHC 540

LOCKWOOD AND WADHAM GOODMAN TRUSTEES LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE ISLAND TRUST V BOSTIK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED CA CA381/2009