New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Court jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

5 May 2023

O’NEILL v JUDICIARY OF AUCKLAND HIGH COURT, REGISTRY OF AUCKLAND HIGH COURT AND PERSONS AS YET UNKNOWN 2023] NZCA 153

Citation

2023] NZCA 153
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the High Court rightly struck out the proceeding as an abuse of process: the claim named no identifiable defendants, disclosed no tenable cause of action, sought orders the Court had no jurisdiction to make against the Head of Bench/Registry, and was barred by judicial immunity, such that permitting it to proceed would be improper exercise of the Court's process.
8 Jun 2022

ADDLEMAN v LAMBIE TRUSTEE LTD [2022] NZCA 231

Citation

[2022] NZCA 231
Court

Court of Appeal

The application was declined because the appeal had been finally determined, the threshold for recall of a final judgment was not met, and disputes about compliance and redaction fall to be resolved in the High Court in accordance with this Court's order E and the Supreme Court's directions; accordingly it was not appropriate to add LITL or make the requested post-judgment directions in this Court.
29 Jul 2021

DAVID RICHARD PARKER [2021] NZSC 93

Citation

[2021] NZSC 93
Court

Supreme Court

Because the filing did not identify any judicial decision against which an appeal was sought, it could not be treated as an application for leave to appeal and the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the broad substantive inquiries asserted; accordingly the Deputy Registrar's refusal to accept the document for filing was confirmed.
30 Nov 2020

CARE CO-ORDINATOR v R [2020] NZCA 574

Citation

[2020] NZCA 574
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 87 requires an express judicial exercise of discretion specifying a date to defer expiry; filing a s85 extension or issuing a judicial conference notice does not automatically or in substance operate as a valid s87 deferral, and when a valid deferral lapses the compulsory care order expires and cannot be retrospectively reinstated by post‑expiry steps.
11 Feb 2020

TE MONI v POLICE [2020] NZHC 119

Citation

[2020] NZHC 119
Court

High Court

Refusal of the transcript application because no written transcript existed and the Rules do not require creation of non-existent documents; resource implications and precedent counsel against ordering transcription; applicant failed to show the high threshold required by s 237 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (no miscarriage of justice or matter of general/public importance), so there was no interest of justice to justify transcription.
8 Nov 2018

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND v LEE [2018] NZHC 2901

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2901
Court

High Court

Because the Court of Appeal in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Wilson established the Court lacks jurisdiction to approve a compromise in an application to set aside a bankruptcy notice where the creditor has not accepted the proposal, and because the debtor did not plead any s17 cross-claim or other grounds (abuse of process or inherent jurisdiction) and his proposal was unsupported and uncertain, the application had no prospect of success and was dismissed with costs to the creditor.
12 Sept 2013

PUBLIC TRUST v LBB [2013] NZHC 2375

Citation

PUBLIC TRUST v LBB [2013] NZHC 2375
Court

High Court

The High Court does not have jurisdiction to appoint a person as a guardian under ss27(1) and (2) because s125(1) reserves guardianship proceedings to the Family Court unless the statute explicitly identifies another court; s27(3) only confers High Court power in relation to litigation guardians and legislative history and statutory coherence support exclusive Family Court jurisdiction.
3 Jul 2009

CHEUNG V PLASTERTECH LIMITED HC WN CIV-2009-485-630

Citation

openlaw-8b2e129d_9ff3_4e91_a495_7d14c4f19569.pdf
Court

High Court

Article 35(3) must be read non-exclusively so that where an award falls within the District Court's monetary jurisdiction both the High Court and the District Court fall within the term 'a Court' in art 35(1)(b); accordingly the High Court retains jurisdiction and the applicant's jurisdictional challenge is rejected.
18 Feb 2004

NGA URI O TE NGAHUE V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL CA CA407/03

Citation

openlaw-801a09af_7608_4982_bee5_1f3a906868bf.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Because established authorities confirm that New Zealand courts have universal summary criminal jurisdiction, local authorities may validly make bylaws under statutory power, and neither the Treaty of Waitangi nor the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 confers a separate jurisdiction or immunity, the application did not raise an arguable question of law and special leave to appeal was refused.