New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appeal by rehearing

Legal area

Court

4 Dec 2023

NOORI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 3799

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3799
Court

High Court

On rehearing the Court found no material error in the District Court Judge's application of the three-step proportionality test: the offending was correctly assessed as low gravity and the demonstrated consequences (citizenship delay, increased travel difficulty, speculative employment effects) were not shown to be out of all proportion to that gravity; therefore no miscarriage of justice and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Aug 2023

DRAKE v DRAKE [2023] NZHC 2390

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2390
Court

High Court

The High Court found the Family Court erred by inadequately assessing s5(d) and by affording insufficient weight to the child's views; the relocation order requiring the child to move to Town B was set aside and replaced with a parenting order providing for equal shared day-to-day care in Town A, with implementation mechanics and counselling directed for the mother; if the father does not take up the shared care option the existing January 2020 order remains in force.
23 Mar 2023

SUDHAKAR v POLICE [2023] NZHC 594

Citation

[2023] NZHC 594
Court

High Court

The Court concluded the offending was moderately serious and that the available evidence did not establish the conviction itself caused the applicant's employment loss; consequences were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending under s107, so discharge without conviction was not warranted; appeal dismissed.
14 Nov 2022

FRYE v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF ORANGA TAMARIKI [2022] NZHC 2976

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2976
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to establish that circumstances had changed such that the care and protection orders could be discharged; contemporaneous clinical and psychological evidence and observed adverse effects on the child from contact supported the Family Court's conclusion that leaving the orders in place best protected the child's wellbeing and attachment to his caregiver, and no fresh evidence admissible on appeal justified a different outcome.
27 May 2022

BOURKE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 1210

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1210
Court

High Court

The appellant provided sufficient evidence to raise a plausible honest mistake that the suspension did not take immediate effect; the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew he was disqualified, the trial judge erred in assessing the evidence, and accordingly the conviction was quashed.
18 Dec 2019

BHULLAR v THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2019] NZHC 3397

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3397
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeals because the Authority failed to analyse the contemporaneous CCTV footage and did not determine whether two or more statutory signs of intoxication were observable at a time when the seller could reasonably have observed them; the police failed to prove on the required standard that the purchaser met the statutory definition of intoxication at the time of the sale given the CCTV and unchallenged testimony of the manager.
16 Dec 2019

LEOTA v LEOTA [2019] NZHC 3335

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3335
Court

High Court

Appeal allowed only on the discrete issue that the Family Court erred in principle by failing to account for mortgage interest as part of post‑separation adjustments under s18B; net adjustment of NZD 7,003.50 ordered (NZD 10,610.00 less NZD 3,606.50 credit). All other grounds of appeal dismissed (KiwiSaver, rental board deductions, OnePath premiums, s13 domestic violence claim, jurisdiction/identity). Family Court timing directions varied; costs lie where they fall; leave reserved for any further necessary supplementary orders.
18 Sept 2018

Ivanov v Accident Compensation Corporation (Work Related Gradual Process Injury)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 150
Court

District Court

The expert medical evidence established longstanding degenerative osteoarthritis in the left knee that was rendered symptomatic while at work but was not caused or materially contributed to by the employment tasks, and there was no evidence of a significantly greater risk for persons performing those tasks; accordingly the appellant failed to satisfy s30(2)(b) and (c) and cover was properly declined, so the appeal is dismissed.
29 Nov 2017

YORK TRUSTEES LIMITED v BODY CORPORATE 166208 [2017] NZHC 2942

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2942
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal out of time was declined because, although delay was partly excusable, the substantive challenges lacked real merit and did not raise questions of broad public importance; the water and hot water charges were not necessarily ultra vires s125 and the financial discrepancy was trivial, making High Court intervention unjustified.
15 Oct 2015

DEAN SELAK CARRYING COMPANY LIMITED v LONERGAN [2015] NZHC 2540

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2540
Court

High Court

On rehearing the High Court concluded on the balance of probabilities that a fragment of nitrile glove was introduced into the oil filtration system by the respondent during service, causing blockage of the piston cooling jet and subsequent engine failure; appeal allowed and judgment entered for the appellant in the sum awarded (NZD 26,120.10) plus costs on a 2B basis.