New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ministerial decision‑making

Legal area

Court

24 Aug 2022

STUDENTS FOR CLIMATE SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED v THE MINISTER OF ENERGY AND RESOURCES [2022] NZHC 2116

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2116
Court

High Court

On a correct construction of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 and its minerals programme the Act's purpose is to promote prospecting, exploration and mining and climate change targets and budgets are not mandatory relevant considerations for decisions under s 25; s 5ZN CCRA merely permits (does not compel) consideration of 2050 targets and budgets and cannot convert irrelevant matters into mandatory considerations; Treaty principles under s 4 may make climate issues indirectly relevant but no Treaty breach or inadequate engagement was established in this case, therefore the judicial review applica…
5 Dec 2016

STATE HOUSING ACTION INC v MINISTER OF HOUSING AND MINISTER OF FINANCE [2016] NZHC 2924

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2924
Court

High Court

Ministers were not required to have or read the full contracts but needed awareness of key contractual features relevant to the statutory objectives in s 50D; the Ministers had adequate briefing and information on the material matters (purchaser structure, put option, reconfiguration) and could reasonably conclude the Tauranga transaction advanced at least one statutory objective (notably diversification of ownership and provision of additional properties), therefore the decision under s 50E was lawful and not an unreasonable exercise of power.
13 Oct 2015

KELSEY v THE MINISTER OF TRADE [2015] NZHC 2497

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2497
Court

High Court

The Minister's blanket refusal was unlawful because he failed to assess individually the information within the requested categories against the withholding criteria in the Official Information Act; the Minister's decision refusing Categories A, C, D, E, F and G is quashed and remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the Act and this judgment.
2 Oct 2008

NZ BIG GAME FISHING COUNCIL INC AND ANOR V SANFORD LIMITED AND ORS SC 40/2008

Citation

SC 40/2008
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was granted because the case raises a real and arguable question of law whether the Minister complied with statutory requirements under s21 of the Fisheries Act 1996 when setting the kahawai TAC in 2004 and 2005, making the issue appropriate for Supreme Court consideration.
22 Feb 2008

AIR NELSON LIMITED V THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AND ANOR CA CA279/06

Citation

openlaw-b3f060a7_c7a0_493b_af6e_d56c1a4ebcd9.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Ministerial decisions to increase landing charges were statutory public law acts subject to judicial review; the Pfiffner paper advising the second Minister did not provide a fair, accurate and adequate account of Air Nelson's objections (including the Q300 fleet impact) and material flaws in the prior process, so the Minister failed to take into account relevant considerations; accordingly both challenged determinations (7 Dec 2004 and 17 Nov 2005) were quashed and the appeal allowed.
11 Dec 2006

AIR NELSON LIMITED V THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2006-485-894

Citation

openlaw-c1091462_8a3a_4f45_a685_304dbc9ed9b2.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the second ministerial decision fixing landing charges was lawful: s27 NZBORA did not apply because the decision was administrative not adjudicative; procedural fairness was satisfied by the extensive consultation process conducted by the Airport Authority and by reliance on departmental advice; the first decision was made on mistaken facts but the Court declined to grant relief setting it aside in the exercise of its discretion because of delay, lack of prejudice, practical redundancy given the 9% charge and available rebate mechanisms.
23 Sept 2005

AHMADZAI V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC AK CIV-2004-404-007105

Citation

openlaw-d5182564_be92_4621_be82_9920e695f65f.pdf
Court

High Court

The Minister erred in law by failing to apply the correct test for ordinary residence (whether the applicant voluntarily adopted New Zealand as his abode for settled purposes) and by giving undue weight to departmental policy about absence durations and to absence as determinative; the decision declining citizenship was not reasonably open on the evidence and is quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

New Zealand Case Law

STUDENTS FOR CLIMATE SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED v THE MINISTER OF ENERGY AND RESOURCES [2022] NZHC 2116

STATE HOUSING ACTION INC v MINISTER OF HOUSING AND MINISTER OF FINANCE [2016] NZHC 2924

KELSEY v THE MINISTER OF TRADE [2015] NZHC 2497

NZ BIG GAME FISHING COUNCIL INC AND ANOR V SANFORD LIMITED AND ORS SC 40/2008

AIR NELSON LIMITED V THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AND ANOR CA CA279/06

AIR NELSON LIMITED V THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2006-485-894

AHMADZAI V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC AK CIV-2004-404-007105