New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Justiciability

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2023

CARTER v CAPITAL AND COAST DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2023] NZCA 466

Citation

[2023] NZCA 466
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for an extension of time was declined because the proposed appeal was clearly hopeless: the High Court correctly struck out the proceeding as disclosing no reasonably arguable cause of action, the courts lack jurisdiction to determine whether psychiatry is 'quackery' or to declare what Parliament may lawfully make, and the appointment of counsel was unnecessary; costs were awarded to the third respondent.
22 Sept 2022

REIHANA v GREGORY FORAN [2022] NZHC 2425

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2425
Court

High Court

Air New Zealand's vaccination requirement was a private contractual condition not an exercise of a statutory power for JRPA purposes, NZBORA did not apply because Air NZ was not exercising a public function conferred by law, and the proposed tortious duty of care was a novel duty that failed on proximity and policy grounds; the pleadings therefore disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action and the claims were struck out (and summary judgment entered) with costs to defendants.
15 Jul 2022

SMITH v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 1693

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1693
Court

High Court

All causes of action in the amended statement of claim are struck out: the proposed novel duty against the Crown is legally untenable because it is undefined, fails the incremental development test, raises insurmountable policy and indeterminacy problems, and would improperly supplant statutory/regulatory frameworks; NZBORA claims under s 8 and s 20 do not establish the necessary positive protective obligations on the pleaded facts (no real, immediate, sufficiently proximate individual risk or denial of minority cultural practice shown); Treaty-based and fiduciary claims are not tenable as st…
13 Apr 2022

MAKE IT 16 INCORPORATED v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZSC 47

Citation

[2022] NZSC 47
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal because the issues engaged questions of public importance and warranted determination by this Court; the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
15 Nov 2021

JE (INDIA) v THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2021] NZHC 3073

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3073
Court

High Court

The Instructions S4.5 and W17 are within the scope of the Minister's power under s22 of the Immigration Act 2009, the Convention was adequately considered in policy development and is referenced in S4.5, the Instructions do not unlawfully discriminate because visa status of a partner is not a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Act and s392 limits Human Rights Act complaints in immigration matters, and immigration policy and border control are executive prerogatives; therefore the challenge to the Instructions fails.
17 Dec 2020

B & J YOUNG OF DARGAVILLE FUNERAL SERVICES LTD v KAIPARA DISTRICT COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 3369

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3369
Court

High Court

Because the applicant filed two defective statements of claim that did not raise a justiciable issue and then discontinued after putting the respondent to the expense of responding, no exception applied; the respondent was entitled to its reasonable costs, awarded on a 2B scale in the sum of $6,692.
6 Jul 2020

THE KIWI PARTY INCORPORATED v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZSC 61

Citation

[2020] NZSC 61
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds lacked sufficient prospects of success: there is no recognised constitutional right to bear arms in New Zealand, challenges to Select Committee procedures are barred by parliamentary privilege, the prerogative was not engaged, and the established rule that courts may not declare Acts of Parliament invalid precluded the applicant's claims.
9 Mar 2020

HAURAKI COROMANDEL CLIMATE ACTION INCORPORATED v THAMES-COROMANDEL DISTRICT COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 444

Citation

[2020] NZHC 444
Court

High Court

On the pleadings and for strike out purposes the claim that TCDC's decision was reviewable was not so clearly untenable that it could not possibly succeed; factual ambiguity as to the Declaration's effect and the mayor's capacity meant strike out was inappropriate; balancing access to justice and public interest, security for costs was refused as disproportionate given the narrow binary issue and public interest dimension.
6 Mar 2020

SMITH v FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LTD [2020] NZHC 419

Citation

[2020] 2 NZLR 394
Court

High Court

The plaintiff's public nuisance claim is struck out because he lacks the required special damage and cannot show an unlawful act or sufficient causal nexus between defendants' conduct and the particular damage pleaded; the negligence claim is struck out because the asserted novel duty fails on foreseeability, causation, proximity and policy grounds (indeterminate and disproportionate liability, and comprehensive statutory regime occupying the field); the claim for a novel 'inchoate' duty is not struck out because the Court will not at strike‑out stage foreclose the possible development of the…
4 Mar 2020

REREKURA v TSB BANK LIMITED [2020] NZHC 385

Citation

[2020] NZHC 385
Court

High Court

Application dismissed because a valid uncontested High Court possession order existed, the applicant had effectively waived his right to contest by non-participation, the Court could not properly grant an injunction preventing enforcement of its own order by court officers, and the applicant failed to demonstrate a serious question to be tried or that the balance of convenience favoured injunctive relief.