New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fit and proper person test

Legal area

Court

30 Aug 2023

REID v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2023] NZHC 2370

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2370
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the Tribunal correctly applied the fit and proper person test: the applicant's Corrections Act offending was serious and, crucially, she failed to give full and unambiguous acknowledgement of wrongdoing, lacked sufficient insight and genuine remorse (including failure to make amends to those falsely accused), and her defence conduct demonstrated a defect of character; on that basis the Tribunal was not wrong to conclude she is not presently fit and proper to be restored to the roll.
30 Aug 2021

KAMAL v RESTRUCTURING INSOLVENCY AND TURNAROUND ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2021] NZCA 514

Citation

[2021] NZCA 514
Court

Court of Appeal

Conditions or supervisory arrangements cannot substitute for or mitigate the statutory requirement that all insolvency practitioners meet the fit and proper standard; RITANZ lawfully applied its good character requirement within the statutory context and had sufficient evidence to refuse membership; the High Court's declarations of error were not established and are quashed.
2 Dec 2020

MCGUIRE v SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2020] NZCA 612

Citation

[2020] NZCA 612
Court

Court of Appeal

The Secretary did not commit a reviewable error: the applicant lacked the required 'recent experience' within the five‑year window for PAL1, the Secretary lawfully considered and declined to exercise the discretionary waiver in reg 6(5) for stated reasons, and given that lack of competence there was no obligation to decide the fit and proper person criterion; the decision was reasonable in light of substantive reforms under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and the regulatory purpose of ensuring quality legal aid services.
24 Jun 2020

MALSTER v R [2020] NZHC 1444

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1444
Court

High Court

Counsel erred by failing to adequately discuss and obtain informed instructions about a s106 discharge application after trial and following a sentencing indication, but even accepting that error there was no real risk it affected the outcome because the consequences of conviction were not shown to be out of all proportion to the low‑level assault and the statutory licensing body (NZTA) and MITO retain lawful discretion to consider the matter; accordingly no miscarriage of justice and appeal dismissed.
5 Feb 2019

LINCOLN v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2019] NZHC 74

Citation

[2019] NZHC 74
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion under High Court Rules r 14.7 to reduce the normal costs award because the admission application engaged public interest, was reasonably conducted by the applicant, the applicant likely faced financial hardship, and the Law Society was performing an obligatory public function; accordingly costs were fixed at $5,000 plus $110 disbursements.
15 Jun 2018

THE DIRECTOR OF MARITIME NEW ZEALAND v PRENTICE [2018] NZHC 1397

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1397
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because Judge Harrison did not err in law: he permissibly assessed the entirety of the evidence, correctly identified that the Review Panel report was flawed and relied upon by the Director, and reached factual conclusions that a judicially‑proper decision‑maker could reasonably reach; the Director complied with s51 and the High Court will not overturn concurrent factual evaluations absent the high Edwards/Bairstow threshold.
28 Mar 2018

TRAVLON COACHLINES (2005) LTD v NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY [2018] NZHC 558

Citation

[2018]NZAR 483
Court

High Court

Court granted limited, conditional interim relief delaying NZTA's revocation until 31 May 2018 because Travlon met the statutory threshold and faced serious irrecoverable hardship, Travlon had taken recent remedial steps (change of mechanic, engagement of RTANZ and AA checks) that made continuation of some operations justifiable, but public safety concerns required strict, time‑limited conditions and monitoring.
28 Nov 2017

REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY v A [2017] NZHC 2929

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2929
Court

High Court

The Tribunal erred by giving insufficient weight to the respondent's sustained, recent dishonesty (tax fraud), by over-relying on employer safeguards and assurances of disclosure that were undermined by suppression orders, and by failing to adequately assess the respondent's psychological traits, minimisation of wrongdoing and limited evidence of genuine remediation; on the rehearing the High Court concluded the respondent is not presently a fit and proper person and reinstated the registrar's refusal to renew the licence.
10 Dec 2015

DOMB v REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY [2015] NZHC 3157

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3157
Court

High Court

The Registrar may require an applicant to authorise the police to disclose the applicant's 'criminal history' defined to include (1) convictions and sentences, (2) police information about pending charges that are relevant to the fit and proper assessment, and (3) records of discharges without conviction relevant to that assessment; however the Registrar cannot require consent to disclose withdrawn charges, acquittals or broad 'any interaction' material or allow the police to determine relevance.
17 May 2013

FOREMAN AUTOMOTIVE LIMITED V SHARMA HC HAM CIV-2013-419-000455

Citation

openlaw-ce73912f_93cb_4a04_bd76_1b2851ac2876.pdf
Court

High Court

Court declined interim relief: although threshold necessity to preserve applicants' position was met, the Court exercised its discretion against relief because the judicial review grounds were weak, granting a stay would undermine the statutory scheme prioritising public safety (s 106(3)), and public safety concerns outweighed private prejudice; existing interim orders revoked effective 7 June 2013.