New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fluoridation of water

Legal area

Court

27 Jun 2018

NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2018] NZSC 60

Citation

[2018] NZSC 60
Court

Supreme Court

The Regulations were a lawful, prospective exercise of the s105 regulation-making power to provide legal clarity; they were not based on an unlawful purpose or material legal error and the consultation and decision-making were adequate. Because the valid Regulations settled the issue prospectively, the Medicines Act appeal no longer raised a live controversy and was properly treated as moot and dismissed.
26 Jun 2014

SAFE WATER ALTERNATIVE NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 1463

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1463
Court

High Court

Application for interim relief dismissed because applicant failed to establish it was reasonably necessary to preserve its position: recommencement of fluoridation would not materially erode applicant's right to due process, there was no cogent evidence of short-term health harm or material prejudice, the costs to the Council were minimal, and the discretionary factors were neutral overall; therefore interim prohibition was not justified.
14 May 2014

NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INC v SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 993

Citation

(2014) 21 PRNZ 766
Court

High Court

The Court invoked the public interest exception in r 14.7(e) because the legality of fluoridation and the s 11 issue raised genuine public interest questions and the plaintiff acted reasonably in the conduct of the proceeding; accordingly no order for costs was made and each party bears its own costs.

New Zealand Case Law

NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2018] NZSC 60

SAFE WATER ALTERNATIVE NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 1463

NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INC v SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 993