New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Case stated procedure

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2018

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT v L [2018] NZHC 2528

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2528
Court

High Court

Benefit Review Committees could not lawfully issue decisions under fictitious names or signatures absent express legislative authority because that practice breached the respondent's s27 NZBORA right to natural justice by preventing informed challenges to appointment or bias; Health and Safety at Work Act duties and recognised common law doctrines do not implicitly authorize anonymity and the common law cannot be developed to override that right; s5 NZBORA does not justify the limitation in the circumstances.
3 Oct 2017

COMMERCE COMMISSION v HARMONEY LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2421

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2421
Court

High Court

Strike out application dismissed: the case stated and enforcement proceedings are different in nature and seek different reliefs; the case stated is not an abuse of process, causes no sufficient prejudice or delay given the enforcement proceeding is stayed, and the proper remedy if duplication is problematic is to stay the enforcement proceeding rather than strike out the case stated.
31 May 2017

COMMERCE COMMISSION v HARMONEY LTD [2017] NZHC 1167

Citation

(2017) 14 TCLR 572
Court

High Court

The Court held that the Commission is entitled to use the case stated procedure under s100A as imported by s113(g) CCCFA to obtain determinations on questions of law arising in its matters; questions 1 (which documents comprise the credit contract), 3 (which entity is creditor) and 4 (whether the platform fee is a credit fee) are legally identifiable questions appropriate for a case stated (questions 3 and 4 to be prefaced 'on the basis of the documents and the factual summary'); questions 2 (whether the transaction is in substance a credit contract under s7(2)) and 5 (whether the platform fe…
10 Mar 2017

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT v S [2017] NZHC 414

Citation

[2017] NZHC 414
Court

High Court

The High Court held that the Appeal Authority did not exceed its jurisdiction by considering and making a direction under s86(3) as part of the 'same matter' under s12I(2); s86(1) and s86(3) are aspects of the same statutory recovery regime and operationally are dealt with in the same inquiry, prior case law supports a broad rehearing power, and absence of procedural safeguards was a legislative oversight remediable elsewhere rather than a basis to narrow 'the same matter'. The formal question in the case stated is answered 'no'.
21 Dec 2016

CREQUER v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2016] NZHC 3179 [21 December 2016]

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3179
Court

High Court

Schedule 1 cl70 payments are 'weekly compensation' under s71A(3); the phrase 'in respect of the person' denotes the person entitled to compensation (the benefit recipient); accordingly s71A required deduction of the appellant's ACC payments from her Independent Youth Benefit and the Authority did not err.
5 May 2016

LAWSON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2016] NZHC 910

Citation

[2016] NZHC 910
Court

High Court

Bonus Bonds were correctly treated as unencumbered cash assets for assessing entitlement; the Authority lawfully applied an ordinary meaning of 'emergency' alongside cl12.2 factors; the Training Incentive Allowance refusal stands despite an acknowledged misapplied restriction because the lawful considerations and evidence justify the same outcome; storage fees for off-site furniture are not accommodation costs under s61E/s61EA; the Authority's factual assessments and discretionary conclusions were not legally erroneous in ways that would change outcomes; Authority should apply rigour in frami…
16 Feb 2016

RE KARAKA [2016] NZHC 183

Citation

[2016] NZFLR 64
Court

High Court

The Family Court may make orders under s135A of the Care of Children Act but any such order against a party in receipt of civil legal aid is subject to s45 of the Legal Services Act 2011; consequently a legally aided party cannot be ordered to pay under s135A except where the exceptional circumstances in s45 are satisfied.
11 Aug 2015

CREQUER v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CA414/2015 [2015] NZCA 365

Citation

[2015] NZCA 365
Court

Court of Appeal

The Deputy Registrar did not err in refusing the fee waiver because the questions raised did not concern matters of significant public interest but rather the appellant's particular factual dispute; the High Court rightly held the SSAA Chair may properly narrow and frame a case stated, and there was no basis to impeach the case stated or the procedure followed.
9 Jul 2015

CREQUER v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZHC 1602

Citation

[2015] NZAR 1395
Court

High Court

The chairman of the SSAA has statutory authority under s 12Q(6) to settle the case stated; the tribunal, not the appellant, controls the content of the case stated subject to the statutory requirement to confine issues to questions of law, and the High Court will not remit or amend a case stated absent demonstrated error — accordingly the appellant's challenge to the content of the case as settled was dismissed.
24 Mar 2015

GROSSER v GROSSER [2015] NZHC 551

Citation

[2015] NZHC 551
Court

High Court

Leave to intervene was refused because the proposed intervener did not demonstrate that his legislative history material or expertise would provide special insights beyond those available from the parties or counsel to assist; relevance alone is insufficient to justify intervention.