New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim relief/stay

Legal area

Court

11 Jul 2018

JM v THE DISTRICT (FAMILY) COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH [2018] NZHC 1716

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1716
Court

High Court

Application for interim orders dismissed because the High Court should not, on interlocutory application, overturn or quash an inferior court's interim order; s15 JRPA restricts coercive relief against the Crown to declaratory relief; and with a two‑day substantive Family Court fixture imminent the appropriate course was to preserve the status quo so the Family Court can fully determine the matters with evidence relevant to the child's welfare.
5 Jul 2018

SHANE WARNER BUILDERS LTD v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2018] NZHC 1654

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1654
Court

High Court

Interim relief was refused because the applicant failed the threshold necessity test: it had already had opportunities to have its proposals fairly considered, provided insufficient new evidence to show a real prospect of success on judicial review or a different outcome on reconsideration, and the Commissioner reasonably exercised statutory discretion given the company's persistent defaults and risk to tax recovery and public interest in enforcement.
16 Apr 2018

WK v THE REFUGEE PROTECTION OFFICER, MBIE, AUCKLAND [2018] NZHC 683

Citation

[2018] NZHC 683
Court

High Court

Interim relief was granted because deportation would render the appeal nugatory under s142 and there are arguable grounds concerning the interpretation and application of s140 (including relationship between s140(1) and s140(3), meaning of key concepts, and potential admissibility of new evidence) warranting consideration by the Court of Appeal; accordingly Crown agreed not to deport the applicant until specified events, and the court gave effect to that agreement pending appeal.
6 Oct 2017

BROOK VALLEY COMMUNITY GROUP INC v THE BROOK WAIMARAMA SANCTUARY TRUST & ORS [2017] NZCA 438

Citation

[2017] NZCA 438
Court

Court of Appeal

Security for costs was ordered but reduced to balance the public interest and appellant's impecuniosity: $6,600 for the Trust and $2,000 each for the Minister and the Council (total $10,600) payable to the Registrar within 20 working days. The appeal raises arguable public law issues so full dispersion of security was inappropriate; respondents failed to establish grounds for increased security under the relevant authorities (Reekie; Houghton v Saunders).
15 Aug 2013

CASTLES v STANDARDS COMMITTEE NO.3 & ANOR [2013] NZHC 2289

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2289
Court

High Court

Interim relief was refused because the applicant's legal position was not irreparably prejudiced (undertakings preserved ability to argue the LPA standard before the Tribunal), the finding of special circumstances had been in place for 14 months and could be challenged by judicial review, the applicant had delayed unreasonably, and the public interest in expeditious resolution and substantial preparatory work completed weighed against staying the Tribunal hearing.
22 Apr 2010

PARMANADAN PARMANADAN AND ANOR V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOR CA CA160/2010

Citation

openlaw-cb571de1_06df_43f5_9797_9e92ba2d8a02.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The interim application was dismissed because the appellant lacked reasonable prospects of success on the central legal issues (no requirement to apply s47(3) at the s54 stage in the amended statutory scheme; the immigration officer adequately considered international obligations; no demonstrated natural justice breach) and an interim order was unnecessary because removal would not irretrievably prejudice the appellant given the statutory cancellation/return mechanism and lack of evidentially established special hardship.
3 Mar 2009

MAHINDER SINGH AND ORS V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOR CA CA48/2009

Citation

openlaw-8517fc7b_0743_4c10_9033_4f8506c4ce85.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not show a substantial prospect of success on the merits and the balance of considerations (enforcement of immigration law, risk of flight, likely release and non‑compliance, and public policy) weighed strongly against granting interim relief to prevent removal.

New Zealand Case Law

JM v THE DISTRICT (FAMILY) COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH [2018] NZHC 1716

SHANE WARNER BUILDERS LTD v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2018] NZHC 1654

WK v THE REFUGEE PROTECTION OFFICER, MBIE, AUCKLAND [2018] NZHC 683

BROOK VALLEY COMMUNITY GROUP INC v THE BROOK WAIMARAMA SANCTUARY TRUST & ORS [2017] NZCA 438

CASTLES v STANDARDS COMMITTEE NO.3 & ANOR [2013] NZHC 2289

PARMANADAN PARMANADAN AND ANOR V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOR CA CA160/2010

MAHINDER SINGH AND ORS V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOR CA CA48/2009