New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial bias

Legal area

Court

7 Dec 2023

NEWTON v LECKIE [2023] NZHC 3550

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3550
Court

High Court

Although the appellant did not identify a clearly seriously arguable error of law or fact, the Court granted leave to appeal because the issue of immunisation materially affected the child's welfare, the Family Court's reasoning did not address the appellant's asserted child‑specific evidence sufficiently to permit meaningful scrutiny, and the interests of justice and the child's welfare justified appellate review.
4 Jul 2023

D (SC 42/2023) v FAMILY COURT AT MANUKAU [2023] NZSC 81

Citation

[2023] NZSC 81
Court

Supreme Court

The Court of Appeal correctly applied settled principles for extensions of time and leave to appeal, concluding the delay was substantial and not adequately explained, that serious allegations of bias should have been pursued promptly and that reliance on subsequent events did not justify the delay, therefore the criteria for leave were not met.
13 Jun 2023

D v FAMILY COURT AT MANUKAU [2023] NZHC 1467

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1467
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because no written transcript existed and the Rules do not require the Court or Registrar to create one; access to the audio would require judicial permission and supervised listening that would impose unreasonable resource burdens, and the applicant did not establish sufficient grounds to override those constraints.
21 Sept 2022

TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZSC 111

Citation

[2022] NZSC 111
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave is dismissed because the statutory criteria in s 74 Senior Courts Act 2016 are not satisfied (no matter of general or public importance and no risk of miscarriage of justice), the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain matters related to refusal of leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, and the applicant provided no evidential basis for allegations of bias or concealment; costs awarded to respondent.
2 Sept 2022

KEITH MERVYN GEORGE HUNTER v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2022] NZSC 104

Citation

[2022] NZSC 104
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave was dismissed because the proposed appeal raised factual, case-specific disputes about amenity effects and merits of the Panel's assessment rather than questions of general or public importance, and there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice or demonstrable procedural error or bias to justify leave.
23 Jun 2022

DE MARCO v THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE [2022] NZHC 1481

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1481
Court

High Court

The plaintiff was found to be impecunious and the threshold for security for costs was met; the review applications had no real prospect of success or were otherwise amenable to being halted given the plaintiff's conduct and prior adverse findings; the Court therefore ordered security for costs of NZD 12,428, stayed the s 226 review proceedings until payment or satisfactory security, and awarded the Official Assignee costs of NZD 7,528.50 and disbursements of NZD 1,000.
9 Jun 2021

EASTON v REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND [2021] NZHC 1347

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1347
Court

High Court

The Registrar's refusal to waive the fee was upheld because the application did not meet the reg 20 genuine public interest threshold; the matters advanced were primarily substantive appeal issues not amenable to resolution in judicial review, and the corruption and discrimination allegations were unsubstantiated.
3 Mar 2021

PETER GERARD STOCKMAN v HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER [2021] NZSC 16 [3 March 2021]

Citation

[2021] NZSC 16
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the grounds advanced were fact specific and did not raise matters of public importance or a real risk of miscarriage of justice; the Court of Appeal had considered the issues afresh (curing any perceived High Court bias); interlocutory discovery issues did not satisfy the necessity threshold in s 74(4); and the Court of Appeal correctly applied orthodox analysis in striking out the misfeasance claims.
18 Dec 2019

PRESCOTT v POLICE [2019] NZHC 3376

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3376
Court

High Court

Appeal dismissed and judicial review dismissed: arrest was lawful because objectively the officer had good cause to suspect Prescott was obstructing police in the execution of duty (s 23 Summary Offences Act) even though s 116 LTA did not apply on the facts; reasons for arrest were given, detention length was not arbitrary, right to counsel was offered, and allegations of judicial bias and tampering were not established.
20 Nov 2019

PRESCOTT v THOMPSON [2019] NZHC 3028

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3028
Court

High Court

The application for security for costs was declined because the applicant's access to justice claim under s 27 BORA was arguable and, in balancing interests, the importance of allowing a potentially meritorious judicial review outweighed the respondent's concerns about recoverability of costs; there was no evidential foundation for alleged judicial bias.