New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Judicial review of discretionary decision

  • 14 Feb 2018

    KAUR v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2018] NZHC 138

    Citation
    [2018] NZHC 138
    Court
    High Court

    An extension under s247(1)(a) is justified where, applying Rajan, the delay was not substantial and the reason (an honest procedural error by counsel which was promptly corrected by agreement and left the respondent fully apprised within time) constitutes an out‑of‑the‑ordinary explanation; accordingly further time is granted.

    • Extension of time
    • Special circumstances
    • Procedural error by counsel
    • Judicial review of discretionary decision
    • Wednesbury unreasonableness
    • S61 discretion

  • 17 Jul 2017

    LIFESTYLES INVESTMENT GROUP v CORAL INVESTMENTS SECURITIES LIMITED (Struck off) [2017] NZHC 1639

    Citation
    [2017] NZHC 1639
    Court
    High Court

    The review is dismissed because the Associate Judge did not err in concluding that an Australian court has jurisdiction and is the more appropriate forum under s24 TTPA: the key subject matter (funds and accounts), the applicable law for claims against Macquarie, and the relevant statutory/regulatory regime are connected to Australia; Australian courts are better placed to resolve issues about knowing assistance; plaintiffs' new evidence on financial incapacity was neither fresh nor sufficiently cogent to alter the balance; and limitation concerns were addressed by undertakings, so there was…

    • Trans-tasman proceedings act s24 stay/forum non conveniens
    • Knowing assistance/accessory liability
    • Breach of trust
    • Breach of fiduciary duty
    • Applicable law/conflict of laws
    • Limitation

  • 25 Jul 2013

    Rameka v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2013] NZACC 219
    Court
    District Court

    The Court found ACC had complied with its statutory assessment obligations by obtaining and relying on a properly qualified assessor (Ms Corby), considered relevant factors including the status of Mr George whose evidence supported treatment as a household family member, and that differences between expert assessments amounted to competing opinions insufficient to establish error of law or that the discretionary decision was plainly wrong; accordingly the reviewer's dismissal of the review was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

    • Attendant care
    • Home help
    • Assessment and reassessment
    • Household family member
    • Judicial review of discretionary decision

  • 9 Nov 2012

    Dewes v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2012] NZACC 371
    Court
    District Court

    The decision to decline funding was legally correct because Reactivate did not meet the statutory definition of a treatment provider under s6 and the claim therefore failed the statutory requirements in s81(4) and Schedule 1; the respondent's exercise of discretion was not shown to be on a wrong principle, so the refusal to fund treatment and travel stands.

    • Treatment provider definition
    • Funding of rehabilitation
    • Statutory interpretation
    • Judicial review of discretionary decision
    • Section 81 liability

  • 13 Jul 2011

    Hindmarsh v Accident Compensation Corporation

    Citation
    [2011] NZACC 182
    Court
    District Court

    The Court held the Corporation's decision to provide 2 hours weekly home help was a lawful exercise of discretion: the assessment was supported by relevant evidence, no error of law or failure to consider relevant matters was shown, and the decision was not plainly wrong; therefore the appeal is dismissed.

    • Home help
    • Assessment of need
    • Reassessment
    • Judicial review of discretionary decision

  • 9 Jun 2008

    KIRK V THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION HC WN CIV 2008-485-805

    Citation
    openlaw-92923d23_7f8a_4ef6_b940_10e66037e419.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The Commission applied the correct statutory test under s 70, considered relevant public interest factors and the newness of the legislation, made a permissible value judgment to use educative measures rather than police referral, and did not take irrelevant considerations; judicial review cannot substitute the Court's value judgment for that of the Commission, therefore the decision stands.

    • Electoral finance act 2007
    • Judicial review of discretionary decision
    • Section 70 discretion
    • Illegal practice
    • Promoter statement
    • Public interest