New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bill of rights act

Legal area

Court

21 Oct 2021

LYNDSAY MONK v R [2021] NZSC 139

Citation

[2021] NZSC 139
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction: the statutory framework (Supreme Court Act 2003 read with Summary Proceedings Act s144A) does not permit appeals from District Court decisions, from a Court of Appeal Judge's review of a Registrar's filing decision, nor from a Court of Appeal decision declining leave, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act does not create an independent right of appeal.
13 Oct 2021

GARTH BOWKETT PATERSON v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZCA 536

Citation

[2021] NZCA 536
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time was declined because, although delay was modest and registry confusion acknowledged, the proposed appeal was manifestly hopeless and constituted an abusive collateral attack on prior bankruptcy orders; prior judgments established no breach of rights or duty and no causation, so equitable considerations did not justify extending time.
28 Jul 2020

SMITH v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 1848

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1848
Court

High Court

No implied public law duty was declared because Parliament has expressly provided for rehabilitation in s 52 of the Corrections Act; s 52 confers a discretionary, conditional duty to provide rehabilitative programmes subject to resources and instruction under s 196; on the facts Corrections reasonably exercised its s 52 obligations and did not arbitrarily detain the plaintiff nor breach s 23(5) or s 27 BORA; relief sought was refused.
30 Sept 2019

MONCRIEF-SPITTLE v REGIONAL FACILITIES AUCKLAND LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2399

Citation

[2019] 3 NZLR433
Court

High Court

RFAL's cancellation of the event was a private/trustee decision about venue hire and safety arising from its role as trustee and operator of the Bruce Mason Centre rather than an exercise of a public function or power subject to judicial review or to the Bill of Rights Act; there was no evidence the Mayor dictated the decision; the applicants lacked a sufficient interest for relief in the circumstances; accordingly judicial intervention was not justified and the claim was dismissed.
14 Aug 2017

PRASAD v DISTRICT COURT AT PAPAKURA & ANOR [2017] NZHC 1920

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1920
Court

High Court

Judicial review was declined because an appeal is the appropriate and available remedy and, on the merits, the District Court Judge did not err: Prasad entered informed guilty pleas for financial reasons without evidence of improper inducement, delay undermined his claim, and the exceptional threshold for vacating pleas was not met.
23 Mar 2017

BROWN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZCA 71

Citation

[2017] NZCA 71
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring the second appeals was refused because the matters raised did not involve general or public importance and there was no miscarriage of justice: the trespass notices were validly issued, the refusal to issue witness summonses did not deny fair trial rights, and the sentences were not excessive.
9 Dec 2016

WRIGHT v BHOSALE [2016] NZCA 593

Citation

[2016] NZCA 593
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the High Court: the officer acted under a mistaken belief rather than bad faith or subjective recklessness; s 23(2) is a temporal right and does not impose a mandatory pre-charge supervisory legislative check; s 24(a) was breached at the police station but remedied when the prosecutor disclosed s 113 with the caption summary on 9 May 2013; the officer had no lawful authority to direct identification under the circumstances but the issue of mere 'asking' need not be decided; any intrusion did not amount to an unreasonable search for which additional remedy was required; exempl…
17 Dec 2014

HAGER v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZHC 3293

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3293
Court

High Court

Court ordered limited discovery of contemporaneous Police documents relevant to (a) the decision whether to apply for a warrant and (b) the execution of the warrant, subject to strict confidentiality safeguards (access limited to named counsel, limited redactions only where necessary to protect ongoing investigation or techniques), directed Police to re-review redactions and provide a list of withheld/partially redacted documents with grounds, held that no District Court reasons document exists, reserved leave on cloning arrangements but proposed Court-appointed ECL expert to perform cloning…
24 Feb 2012

JUDITH ANNE MCKEOWN V CANTERBURY DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD COA CA47/2011

Citation

openlaw-42fa4dc8_9f99_4281_b044_c28719eca1f8.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Where an appeal raises an arguable point of public interest and exceptional circumstances exist because the security issue crystallised at a very late stage with a significant proportion of respondent costs already incurred, it is in the interests of justice to dispense with security for costs for the appeal (subject to fresh assessment if the matter returns to trial).
19 Sept 2005

HENDERSON V THE DIRECTOR OF LAND TRANSPORT NEW ZEALAND CA CA133/04

Citation

openlaw-3f957691_399f_44cf_a23e_e4b521aea6de.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed: failure to give the s89 warning in the factual circumstances did not invalidate the s90 suspension because s89(2) applied; demerit points do not lapse prior to service of a suspension notice under s90/s91; the s90 notice, read as a whole, sufficiently conveyed suspension; the delay did not breach the Bill of Rights or amount to an abuse of process warranting relief and judicial review was not available to overturn the Director's mandatory statutory function.