New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Equality of arms

Legal area

Court

13 Apr 2022

MINISTER OF JUSTICE v KYUNG YUP KIM [2022] NZSC 44

Citation

[2022] NZSC 44
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (majority) held the further diplomatic assurances and PRC responses — that the respondent would be detained and tried in Shanghai, that New Zealand consular visits during investigation would be permitted at least every 48 hours and on request, and assurances regarding judicial committee procedures and disclosure consistent with PRC domestic law — provided a reasonable basis for the Minister to be satisfied there were no substantial grounds to believe the respondent faced a real risk of torture or an unfair trial; accordingly the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Court…
5 Oct 2018

MAINZEAL & ORS v YAN & ORS [2018] NZHC 2522

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2522
Court

High Court

Judge allowed Mr Burt to give expert evidence because he is suitably qualified, his evidence is relevant to disputed issues under ss 135 and 136, the New Zealand approach permits more than one expert where materially helpful, there was no unfair prejudice or real equality-of-arms problem given the parties' resources and evidence, and any specific inadmissible passages could be reserved and ruled on later; evidence received de bene esse.
13 Jun 2017

CHISNALL v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZCA 248

Citation

[2017] NZCA 248
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that s 10 distinguishes between a court 'direction' (s 10(1)) and a respondent 'request' (s 10(2)); s 10(6) applies only where the court directs an assessor and not where a respondent requests one; therefore where a respondent requests an assessor and has not been granted legal aid the costs are not payable from public funds, and legal aid is Parliament's chosen route to fund such reports; however the Court may in an appropriate case exercise s 10(1) and direct an assessor and thereby trigger s 10(6).
13 Oct 2008

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED AND ORS CA CA607/2008

Citation

openlaw-b3f74f90_282c_4681_a05b_ce5f39bb72fd.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Because the respondents failed to provide the undertakings sought to ensure the loan proceeds would be applied only to authorised purposes, and because allowing drawdown posed a real risk of rendering the appellant's right of appeal nugatory, the Court granted a stay of execution of the High Court order pending resolution of the appeal to preserve the efficacy of the appellate process.
17 Oct 2007

MINISTRY OF FISHERIES V DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH AND ORS HC CHCH CIV-2007-409-002390

Citation

openlaw-4e9a6f1b_c118_43d0_9900_2f6ea2f17900.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held the District Court did not err in refusing the s32 applications because the Judge lawfully conducted the requisite balancing exercise, including consideration of NZBORA ss24 and 25, the limited time the witnesses had to remain in New Zealand, language and technical evidential difficulties, ongoing discovery and the need for meaningful cross-examination; the decision was within the range of reasonable judicial discretion and was not plainly wrong.

New Zealand Case Law

MINISTER OF JUSTICE v KYUNG YUP KIM [2022] NZSC 44

MAINZEAL & ORS v YAN & ORS [2018] NZHC 2522

CHISNALL v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZCA 248

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED AND ORS CA CA607/2008

MINISTRY OF FISHERIES V DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH AND ORS HC CHCH CIV-2007-409-002390