New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Error of fact

Legal area

Court

8 Oct 2015

TAYLOR v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2015] NZCA 477 [8 October 2015]

Citation

[2015] NZAR 1648
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is allowed and the delegate's decision set aside because the decision-maker failed to consider less rights-impairing interview alternatives (eg AVL or non face-to-face formats) and relied on material factual errors (an incorrectly attributed incident and an incorrect security classification) and conclusions not rationally connected to the evidence; therefore the refusal was unlawful on administrative review grounds and must be set aside for reconsideration or fresh application.
11 Dec 2006

AIR NELSON LIMITED V THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2006-485-894

Citation

openlaw-c1091462_8a3a_4f45_a685_304dbc9ed9b2.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the second ministerial decision fixing landing charges was lawful: s27 NZBORA did not apply because the decision was administrative not adjudicative; procedural fairness was satisfied by the extensive consultation process conducted by the Airport Authority and by reliance on departmental advice; the first decision was made on mistaken facts but the Court declined to grant relief setting it aside in the exercise of its discretion because of delay, lack of prejudice, practical redundancy given the 9% charge and available rebate mechanisms.
27 Apr 2006

LALLI V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION) HC CIV 2006-404-00435

Citation

openlaw-728a4739_7e61_41ad_820b_bbe90cf56cec.pdf
Court

High Court

No legitimate expectation existed that the spouse would automatically be re-interviewed; the Immigration Service Manual and international instruments require consideration of family interests not mandatory interviews; the decision-maker (Ms Bentley) properly considered the spouse's position on the basis of the prior interview and material before her, and there was no failure to take a relevant consideration into account, no material factual error, no predetermination and no Wednesbury unreasonableness; the judicial review application therefore fails.
29 Jan 1998

Swann v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1998] NZACC 6
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal to the High Court was granted because the interpretative question whether s89(5) permits any discretion to extend the three month review period is a significant question of law going beyond this case and not settled by the High Court; although prior District Court decisions have denied such discretion and the appellant's subsidiary points lacked merit, the principal point warranted consideration at a higher level.

New Zealand Case Law

TAYLOR v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2015] NZCA 477 [8 October 2015]

AIR NELSON LIMITED V THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2006-485-894

LALLI V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION) HC CIV 2006-404-00435

Swann v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation