New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cross-examination in judicial review

Legal area

Court

8 Dec 2015

SINGH v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2015] NZCA 592

Citation

[2015] NZCA 592
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 177, in context and as amended post-Ye/Huang, restricts judicial review to ensuring the immigration officer complied with the limited recording obligations and to Wednesbury-type unreasonableness; the officer need not give reasons and cross-examination is unnecessary unless clearly required for fair disposal; the best interests of a citizen child must be considered but do not convert s 177 review into a full proportionality/correctness inquiry.
1 May 2015

TAYLOR v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2015] NZHC 902

Citation

[2015] NZHC 902
Court

High Court

Leave to cross-examine was refused because the applicant failed to show a genuine evidentiary conflict or precedent-fact dispute that could not be addressed by affidavit evidence and submissions; permitting cross-examination was not necessary nor required by the interests of justice under the settled test.
17 Sept 2008

GEARY V PSYCHOLOGISTS BOARD AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2007-485-2558

Citation

openlaw-6cc9e4ac_ad58_445a_aa6f_640739225ce3.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to cross-examine was refused because the plaintiff's allegations of prejudice and pre-determination were general and lacked the necessary particularity, and because cross-examining individual members about the internal decision-making of a collective body is inappropriate; the application to strike out parts of affidavits was also refused because the threshold for striking out was not met and the issues could be addressed at the substantive hearing or by further affidavit or interrogatories.
14 Mar 2008

WHAKATANE DISTRICT COUNCIL V BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL HC ROT CIV-2007-463-000606

Citation

openlaw-4ff6b3b5_e387_4a6d_b580_a0132859b268.pdf
Court

High Court

Applying r 187 the Court balanced the need to comply with procedural timetables and the interest in achieving a just determination; permitted only limited amendments (insertion of s 83 reference and particulars 24(ii) and 24(iv)) because they do not prejudice the respondent or add substantially new matters; refused most late proposed particulars (notably those alleging relocation of 70 or 100 rather than 130 positions and many detailed alleged statements by councillors) because they were weak, pleaded evidence rather than particulars, lacked evidential foundation and would prejudice the respo…
13 Jul 2006

QIONG AND ORS V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-5202

Citation

openlaw-41aca343_1227_472b_ad35_59b95bf17356.pdf
Court

High Court

The court will permit cross-examination in a judicial review only where necessary to resolve central factual disputes; here cross-examination was allowed but strictly limited to (a) what transpired and was said at the meeting when removal was advised and whether the applicant understood that advice, and (b) the Immigration Service's practice in giving advice of a final removal decision after a humanitarian interview, including whether advice is given in writing or to lawyers, as these issues are material to the applicant's claim of legitimate expectation.

New Zealand Case Law

SINGH v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2015] NZCA 592

TAYLOR v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2015] NZHC 902

GEARY V PSYCHOLOGISTS BOARD AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2007-485-2558

WHAKATANE DISTRICT COUNCIL V BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL HC ROT CIV-2007-463-000606

QIONG AND ORS V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-5202