31 Aug 2020
Application for stay dismissed because the balance of convenience favoured the successful neighbour who would suffer substantial emotional and financial prejudice including imminent building consent expiry, the appeal lacked real prospects of success and the applicant could not provide undertakings as to damages; the effects on third parties and public interest did not justify a stay.
16 Jul 2020
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any legal error, procedural unfairness or bias sufficient to vitiate the panel's decision: the panel lawfully requested and provided additional information under s41C RMA, relied appropriately on site inspection and expert reports on heritage and amenity, any minor inaccuracies were non‑prejudicial, and the alleged instances of bias or predetermination were unsupported.
31 Jan 2020
The Court held the Council's removal of the volunteer working group leader was narrowly amenable to judicial review because the matter had a public aspect, but dismissed the applicant's claims: there was no enforceable duty to consult or to afford a hearing in the circumstances, no legitimate expectation requiring further procedural protection, and no disqualifying bias or predetermination; a deferential standard of review applied given the Council's statutory discretion and the informal advisory nature of the group.
31 May 2019
The application to rescind or vary was dismissed because the Judge was not satisfied the earlier interlocutory decision was wrong: no fresh material evidence or change in circumstances was shown, s 15 governs interim relief in judicial review and civil interim injunction principles do not displace that framework, and on the discretionary assessment (including prospects and public interest) exclusion of the panel was not justified.
6 Aug 2018
The Council validly exercised delegated authority when Mr Hill adopted the consultant's analysis and made the non-notification decision; the assessment properly confined relevant adverse effects to environmental effects over which the Council had jurisdiction, the applicants were not affected persons, there was no bias or pre-determination, and the non-notification decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable; judicial review application dismissed.
30 Aug 2017
The High Court dismissed the judicial review because the Parole Board lawfully conducted a fresh statutory assessment of undue risk, appropriately considered all relevant material (including RoC*RoI as one factor), observed statutory natural justice safeguards, avoided bias, did not unlawfully delegate its function or adjudicate acquitted matters, and reached a decision that was open to it on the evidence and law.
4 Oct 2013
Leave to issue subpoenas compelling the convenors of ASC1 and NSC to give oral evidence was denied because oral evidence was not necessary to fairly determine the judicial review: there is an extensive contemporaneous documentary record and the matters largely turn on legal issues; allegations of bad faith were general and did not provide an evidential basis requiring compelled oral testimony; compelling decision‑makers is exceptional and the appropriate remedy is usually an adverse inference where warranted.
25 Sept 2013
The Board's resolution to instruct counsel and to seek access to court files were preliminary investigatory steps and not exercises of a statutory power of decision reviewable under the Judicature Amendment Act 1972; even if reviewable the Court would not grant relief because of reluctance to interfere with prosecutorial-style discretion, availability of full procedural safeguards in any s268 proceeding, and absence of evidence of bad faith; applications dismissed.
11 Jul 2012
The Minister complied with statutory consultation requirements, adequately considered educational outcomes and relevant policy objectives, the record did not demonstrate reliance on incorrect information sufficient to invalidate consultation, and there was no evidence of bias or predetermination; accordingly the judicial review application was dismissed.
28 Oct 2011
Interim relief under s 8 of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 was granted because the statutory threshold to preserve the applicant's position was met, the applicant demonstrated a strong arguable case including that the wrong test was applied at a critical point and there are serious issues of bias and safety evidence, the historical interlocutory conduct made an appeal to the District Court unrealistic, and the balance of public and private interests favoured preserving the licence; accordingly the revocation was suspended until further order.