New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deprivation of citizenship

Legal area

Court

22 Sept 2017

TAYLOR v MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2017] NZHC 2302

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2302
Court

High Court

Mistake under s17(2) includes innocent misstatements by the grantee and such a mistake can be a substantial cause that procures either satisfaction of a grant requirement (eg good character) or the grant itself; the Court's role on s19(2) is limited to assessing sufficiency of statutory grounds (not a wider merits balancing) and, on the facts, the Minister was entitled to issue the deprivation notice and the applications were dismissed.
18 Sept 2017

KHAN v MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2017] NZHC 2250

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2250
Court

High Court

The applicant deliberately omitted relevant information about his US convictions and residence; that wilful concealment was a substantial cause of obtaining residency and ultimately citizenship; reliance on adviser advice does not negate wilfulness; therefore the s17(2) notice was supported by sufficient grounds, the s19(2) declaration is refused and the judicial review discloses no error or Wednesbury unreasonableness.
3 May 2016

TAYLOR v MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2016] NZHC 868

Citation

[2016] NZAR 1244
Court

High Court

The Court held s 19(2) review is confined to the grounds specified in the Minister's notice; although the material supported the Minister's conclusion that the grant was procured by mistake, the Minister's process breached natural justice by changing and advancing grounds without properly notifying the applicant and by proceeding after the Minister had effectively made the decision, and accordingly the Notice of Intention to Deprive was set aside while the s 19 declaration was refused.
20 Aug 2013

JOSEPH v MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2013] NZHC 2107

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2107
Court

High Court

The Court held that, for the purposes of r 5.45, the plaintiff is currently resident out of New Zealand and there is reason to believe he would be unable to pay the defendant's costs; however, in the exercise of its discretion the Court declined to order security for costs because the claim was not manifestly unmeritorious, the circumstances were unusual, access to justice outweighed the risk of non‑recoverable costs, and it was desirable that the substantive issues be determined by the Court.
7 Sept 2009

HAO V MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS HC AK CIV-2009-404-005610

Citation

openlaw-3726f739_3724_405d_ae7e_ea71746ed307.pdf
Court

High Court

On the facts the plaintiff knew of her Australian migrant status, the issue with an Australian passport bearing a wrong name and birth date and its confiscation; her failure to disclose those materially relevant facts when applying for New Zealand citizenship amounted to wilful concealment (and supports an inference of fraud) that procured the grant, therefore there are sufficient grounds under s17(2) to justify possible deprivation and the Court will not declare there are insufficient grounds; judicial review claim dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

TAYLOR v MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2017] NZHC 2302

KHAN v MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2017] NZHC 2250

TAYLOR v MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2016] NZHC 868

JOSEPH v MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2013] NZHC 2107

HAO V MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS HC AK CIV-2009-404-005610