New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Appointment of lawyer for child

  • 25 Jul 2023

    HAGLEY v HAGLEY [2023] NZHC 1950

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 1950
    Court
    High Court

    Appeal allowed: the High Court found the Family Court judge gave undue primacy to the children's views and conflated family violence proceedings with care proceedings (COCA), failed to properly assess key s 110(2) factors (notably whether areas of concern were no longer evident given respondent's relapse to drinking and limited demonstrated insight), and therefore erred in discharging the protection order; the High Court reinstated the protection order and held the appointment of lawyer for child in these circumstances was ultra vires because s 166(1)(c)(ii) is to be read as confined to proce…

    • Protection order
    • Discharge of protection order
    • Appointment of lawyer for child
    • Judicial interview
    • Risk assessment
    • Family violence act 2018 interpretation

  • 14 May 2021

    FAMILY COURT v AA [2021] NZCA 189

    Citation
    [2021] NZCA 189
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    Despite an excessive delay of about two and a half years an extension of time to appeal was granted because the proposed appeal raises seriously arguable questions of public importance about whether s133 requires ascertaining a child's views before ordering a psychological report and because the appeal intersects with CA19/2021 such that the interests of justice require joint resolution; leave to intervene was granted to the Attorney‑General and NZLS on defined terms and timetable directions were given.

    • Care of children act s133 reports
    • Judicial review
    • Extension of time under r29a
    • Intervention by attorney-general and nz law society
    • Appointment of lawyer for child

  • 14 Jun 2017

    LOWE v AUCKLAND FAMILY COURT [2017] NZHC 1303

    Citation
    [2017] NZHC 1303
    Court
    High Court

    The application was dismissed because the applicant did not demonstrate any special reason entitling the court to reverse, discharge or vary the interlocutory costs order under HCR r14.8(2) (no overlooked relevant evidence, no material change of circumstances, and the subsequent judicial review outcome did not undermine the appropriateness of costs ordered); the late affidavit was inexcusable and could and should have been filed earlier by counsel.

    • Interlocutory costs
    • Judicial review
    • Natural justice
    • Appointment of lawyer for child
    • High court rules r14.8 and r7.49