New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fit and proper person assessment

Legal area

Court

10 Jun 2021

ANTHONY v NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [2021] NZHC 1374

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1374
Court

High Court

The Court held that the statutory threshold under s15 JRPA was met and, exercising its discretion, granted interim relief because the alleged offending appeared to be an isolated domestic incident that did not on the material before the Court demonstrate a general public safety risk, and because substantial hardship would result to the applicant absent interim preservation of his endorsements.
1 Jun 2021

RAFIQ v CAA [2021] NZHC 1273

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1273
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal out of time is declined because the applicant provided no satisfactory explanation for the extreme delay and the proposed appeal lacks sufficient merit such that refusal does not produce a miscarriage of justice.
9 Mar 2020

MITCHELL v NZ POLICE [2020] NZHC 440

Citation

[2020] NZHC 440
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the District Court Judge's approach: he properly proceeded on the agreed summary of facts, any contested inferences were either acknowledged or immaterial, and there was insufficient evidence of a real and appreciable risk that conviction would disproportionately impact the appellant's prospective employment or travel. On balance the consequences of conviction were modest and did not outweigh the gravity of the offending, so the s107 test for discharge without conviction was not satisfied.
24 Jun 2019

LONGVILLE v NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY [2019] NZHC 1445

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1445
Court

High Court

The Court concluded that interim relief under s15 was necessary to preserve the intertwined commercial position of the applicant and DKL and that, balancing the statutory public safety concerns against significant hardship, continuation of the interim order was justified provided stringent conditions were imposed to mitigate safety risks and ensure expedition of substantive proceedings.
23 May 2019

STAN SEMENOFF LOGGING LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY [2019] NZHC 1133

Citation

(2019) 24 PRNZ 513
Court

High Court

The Court held there was a reasonably arguable case that NZTA may have failed to identify and adduce a sufficient nexus between systemic corporate non‑compliance and the personal acts or omissions of each named Person in Control such that the statutory 'satisfied' threshold under ss30C/30S was arguably not met; nevertheless public safety concerns were substantial and the interim order preserving the licence should continue subject to enforceable conditions to protect the public pending substantive review or appeal.
23 Oct 2018

MCCROSTIE TRUCKING LTD v NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY [2018] NZHC 2736

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2736
Court

High Court

The stay was refused because, on balance, the significant and continuing public safety risk identified by the NZTA and the statutory scheme prioritising public safety outweighed the company's arguable judicial review and private hardship; the company remained at risk because of ongoing control and influence by Mr McCrostie and insufficient remedial proposals, and deference to the regulator was appropriate.
23 Nov 2016

DELIU v THE NEW ZEALAND DISTRICT COURT & ORS [2016] NZHC 2806

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2806
Court

High Court

Section 74(d) of the Evidence Act codifies the common law immunity that bars compelling judges to give evidence about their conduct as judges; the District Court Judge correctly applied that rule to refuse certification to subpoena judges to testify about impressions of counsel competence and fitness; there was no breach of natural justice in deciding the ex parte application on the papers.
22 Apr 2016

DOMB v REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY [2016] NZHC 767

Citation

[2016] NZHC 767
Court

High Court

The Registrar cannot require a broad, open-ended consent to police disclosure. The Registrar is entitled to request disclosure of (1) convictions and sentences including findings of liability for infringement offences with maximum penalty $10,000 or more; (2) information about pending charges only where the charges are for offences in respect of which the applicant may elect trial by jury or are infringement offences with maximum penalty $10,000 or more; and (3) records of discharges without conviction and diversions only in respect of charges for which the applicant may elect trial by jury o…
2 Sept 2015

NARESH v THE NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY [2015] NZHC 2113

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2113
Court

High Court

The High Court held that the District Court did not err in law by taking discharges without conviction into account when assessing whether a taxi driver is a fit and proper person because the Land Transport Act 1998 expressly permits the Agency to consider underlying conduct and information from any source (ss 30C, 30D, 30G); and the additional discharge disclosed after the hearing was properly placed before the Judge and lawfully considered.
14 Sept 2011

HOSSAIN V THE NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY HC AK CIV-2011-404-004986

Citation

openlaw-f6cb6d23_7a07_4209_92ee_12e41343ea0e.pdf
Court

High Court

The applicant failed to show a sufficiently strong substantive case to justify interim reinstatement; the Agency lawfully relied on the applicant's conduct (including non‑conviction material) under ss30C(2),(4) and 30G LTA when assessing fitness to hold a taxi licence; procedural requirements were met and natural justice/s27 NZBORA were not breached; public safety and the statutory prohibition on stays pending appeal outweigh personal hardship, so interim relief was properly refused.