New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Legal representation

Legal area

Court

16 May 2022

P v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2022] NZCA 188

Citation

[2022] NZCA 188
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal and to commence judicial review was declined because the proposed grounds were not seriously arguable: the Tribunal provided a fair hearing and took steps to mitigate disadvantage from lack of legal representation, P did not demonstrate how representation would have changed the outcome, and the factual findings including consideration of stigma did not meet the statutory threshold of exceptional humanitarian circumstances.
21 Sept 2020

BARAKAT v R [2020] NZCA 440

Citation

[2020] NZCA 440
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the District Court: the appellant received timely and appropriate advice, had a support person, provided signed instructions and made informed decisions to seek and accept a sentence indication; there were no exceptional circumstances or legal errors sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice warranting withdrawal of guilty pleas.
16 Sept 2019

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v ZHANG [2019] NZHC 2319

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2319
Court

High Court

Adjournment was refused because the applicant had been given prior notice and opportunity to obtain counsel, delayed challenging the summary judgment for many months, had no concrete retainer or expert valuation in place, provided no evidence of prejudice or her financial position, and the court was satisfied it had sufficient material to assess whether an arguable defence existed; permitting the requested adjournment would unjustly prejudice creditors and waste scarce court resources.
4 Apr 2019

JOHNSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 695

Citation

[2019] NZHC 695
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because none of the exceptional Le Page categories or other grounds for setting aside a guilty plea are present: the appellant understood the charge and plea, no legal error or improper pressure is established, and the District Court judge did not err in refusing an adjournment; therefore no miscarriage of justice under s 232 is shown.
27 Nov 2018

OBIAGA v THE VISITING JUSTICE AT AUCKLAND PRISON & ANOR [2018] NZHC 3095

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3095
Court

High Court

Refusal to permit legal representation without first inquiring into the nature and complexity of the applicant's defences, combined with denial of the opportunity to call and cross-examine material witnesses, deprived the applicant of a real opportunity to state his case and amounted to a breach of natural justice in the prison disciplinary context; the Visiting Justice's findings were therefore quashed and the matter remitted for rehearing.
21 Feb 2018

KUMAR v THE VISITING JUSTICE AT AUCKLAND PRISON [2018] NZHC 209

Citation

[2018] NZHC 209
Court

High Court

The court held that the refusal of legal representation on the facts was within the lawful exercise of s135 discretion and later denials were justified, the prosecution's partial transcription and provision of audio satisfied s121 in the circumstances, but the decision to adjourn Charge B on 2 December 2015 was procedurally irregular and unlawful because it conflicted with the statutory emphasis on prompt resolution and was inconsistent with the available facts and expectations, warranting a declaratory remedy rather than quashing of convictions.
20 Feb 2018

BUTCHER v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2018] NZHC 196

Citation

[2018] NZHC 196
Court

High Court

The proceeding is struck out because the transcript and court file show the District Court did not refuse to hear or dismiss the s 147 application on 4 April 2017 but adjourned the matter, addressed counsel issues and allocated time for pre-trials; accordingly the judicial review claim discloses no reasonably arguable cause and is an abuse of process and, in any event, the proper remedy is appeal.
15 Dec 2017

GENGE v VISITING JUSTICE AT CHRISTCHURCH MENʼS PRISON [2017] NZHC 3168

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3168
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the judicial review because the evidence established no reviewable error: the applicant had sufficient notice or failed to timely challenge it, written reasons for refusal of legal representation were given, the failure to call the nurse did not make the hearing unfair given adjournment attempts and available testimony, and the reclassification was a lawful exercise of managerial discretion in light of prior conduct; delay further prejudiced the applicant's case and made relief inappropriate.
30 Aug 2017

MITCHELL v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZHC 2091 [30 August 2017]

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2091
Court

High Court

The referral to a Visiting Justice without a preliminary hearing was lawful under the Corrections Act and precedent; there was no statutory breach in relation to consideration of legal representation; adjournments were justified and often at the applicant's request; disclosure obligations were satisfied and the absence of a transcript did not cause unfairness because the complainant re‑gave her evidence; the Visiting Justice's credibility findings were open on the evidence; accordingly there was no breach of natural justice and the judicial review challenge failed.
21 Nov 2014

MU v BODY CORPORATE 312431 [2014] NZHC 2931

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2931
Court

High Court

The Judge accepted the documentary record of the Body Corporate meetings, the email disavowing earlier counsel, and Mr Singh's oral warranty of authority; absent countervailing evidence the Court concluded there was adequate proof of Mr Singh's authority under r 5.37 and proceeded on that basis.