New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bill of rights s5 justification

Legal area

Court

25 Feb 2022

YARDLEY v MINISTER FOR WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND SAFETY [2022] NZHC 291

Citation

(2022) 19 NZELR 125
Court

High Court

The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Specified Work Vaccinations) Order 2021 was unlawful because the Crown failed to demonstrate the limitation of fundamental rights was reasonable and demonstrably justified: the Order did not materially advance the stated objective (continuity of essential Police/NZDF services and public trust) given the small number of actually affected personnel, lack of evidence that internal policies would not have sufficed, and the limited preventive effect of vaccination against infection/transmission for variants such as Omicron; accordingly the Order was set aside.
2 Nov 2021

BORROWDALE v DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH [2021] NZCA 520

Citation

[2021] NZCA 520
Court

Court of Appeal

s70(1)(f) and (m) of the Health Act 1956 are broad enough to authorise the nationwide closure, congregation and isolation/quarantine orders challenged; limits on NZBORA ss16,17,18 arising from those Orders were justified under s5 in the emergency context; the Director-General did not unlawfully delegate the core decision on what constituted 'essential businesses' when he adopted and issued the Order, although some later ministerial exemptions may have been ultra vires.
4 Sept 2019

MEDERO v MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2019] NZHC 2204

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2204
Court

High Court

The Order and Agreement do not extend the emergency benefit to New Zealand citizens resident in Australia; the appellant lacked "working age residence" in New Zealand so any SLPO calculation produced a nil entitlement; although the Authority misstated that medical verification was lacking, that factual point did not affect the legal outcome; any prima facie discrimination on age and disability grounds was justified under s5 NZBORA by the legitimate reciprocal policy objectives and the Order was not ultra vires the enabling statute; appeal dismissed.
25 Nov 2010

AUCKLAND HEBREW CONGREGATION TRUST BOARD AND ANOR V MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE HC WN CIV-2010-485-1423

Citation

openlaw-aa0fc5f4_4ef6_4c07_868e_372aa4d26f7b.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to cross-examine was refused because the Minister's affidavit and the available background documents provided sufficient evidence for the trial judge to assess the issues; cross-examination was not clearly necessary and would unduly intrude on the constitutional balance between judicial scrutiny and ministerial functions.

New Zealand Case Law

YARDLEY v MINISTER FOR WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND SAFETY [2022] NZHC 291

BORROWDALE v DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH [2021] NZCA 520

MEDERO v MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2019] NZHC 2204

AUCKLAND HEBREW CONGREGATION TRUST BOARD AND ANOR V MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE HC WN CIV-2010-485-1423