New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ministerial discretion

Legal area

Court

15 Aug 2023

WINTON PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LIMITED v MINISTER OF FINANCE [2023] NZCA 368

Citation

[2023] NZCA 368
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal: Ministers did not err in law in applying a proportionate approach to the benefit to New Zealand test; the OIO made reasonable enquiries and its counterfactual assessments were permissible predictive judgments not susceptible to being recast as established mistakes of fact; the numerical error as to percent New Zealand ownership was immaterial and did not determine the outcome; the decision was open on the evidence and not manifestly unreasonable; and even if error had been shown, relief would likely be refused in the exercise of discretion given prejudice to th…
24 Mar 2023

AUCKLAND PRIDE v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2023] NZHC 635

Citation

[2023] NZHC 635
Court

High Court

The interim application was dismissed because the applicants failed to meet the high threshold to show the Minister's decision was outside the range of reasonable responses; the Minister reasonably concluded that excluding the speaker would not meaningfully reduce the risk of public disorder given the likelihood events and counter-protests would occur regardless, and judicial intervention is inappropriate absent clear irrationality.
19 Mar 2020

ZHANG v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2020] NZHC 568

Citation

[2020] NZHC 568
Court

High Court

The Associate Minister's Decision was set aside because he failed to give adequate regard to mandatory considerations, notably New Zealand's international obligations as they related to the best interests of the children, and because the Decision was unreasonable on the evidence such that the only reasonable outcome required reconsideration; the matter is referred back to the Minister for reconsideration taking account of the Court's conclusions of law.
30 Jul 2019

DEAN v ASSOCIATE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2019] NZCA 343

Citation

[2019] NZCA 343
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court concluded the briefing paper was not misleading or materially erroneous and that the Associate Minister's refusal to cancel liability for deportation fell within the range of reasonable decisions available under the absolute discretion conferred by the Immigration Act 2009, so the appeal was dismissed.
18 Oct 2018

DOTCOM v DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2018] NZCA 442

Citation

[2018] NZAR 1859
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the strike‑out: seven of eight judicial review causes were either not reasonably arguable in light of this Court's conclusions on s131 as an extradition pathway or constituted an abuse of process because they amounted to collateral attacks or attempts to relitigate matters that were or could have been determined in earlier proceedings and appeals; strike‑out was therefore appropriate.
17 Jul 2018

GOUNDAN v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2018] NZHC 1756

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1756
Court

High Court

The Associate Minister was not required to consider the INZ file when deciding under s 190(5); reliance on the Tribunal's detailed written decision and reasons was lawful because the Tribunal had comprehensively summarised the material on the file, there was no implied legislative requirement to review the file, and the omission did not amount to breach of natural justice or international obligations; the judicial review application was dismissed.
2 Nov 2017

THOMSON v THE MINISTER FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES [2017] NZHC 733

Citation

[2017] NZHC 733
Court

High Court

Section 225's express review obligation after IPCC reports applies to targets set under the s225 regulation process only; however publication of a new IPCC Assessment Report is a mandatory relevant consideration under s224 such that the Minister must consider whether an existing s224 gazetted target should be reviewed if the new scientific assessment materially alters the factual basis of the target; on the facts the Minister did not unlawfully err in setting or confirming the 2030 NDC and no intervention was justified, and relief is therefore refused.
22 Sept 2017

TAYLOR v MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2017] NZHC 2302

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2302
Court

High Court

Mistake under s17(2) includes innocent misstatements by the grantee and such a mistake can be a substantial cause that procures either satisfaction of a grant requirement (eg good character) or the grant itself; the Court's role on s19(2) is limited to assessing sufficiency of statutory grounds (not a wider merits balancing) and, on the facts, the Minister was entitled to issue the deprivation notice and the applications were dismissed.
31 Aug 2017

KIM v THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE [2017] NZHC 2109

Citation

[2017] 3 NZLR 823
Court

High Court

The Minister's decision to surrender was lawfully made and open to a reasonable decision-maker because she addressed the specific judicially-identified deficiencies by obtaining material further information and expert advice, secured detailed case-specific diplomatic assurances from China, obtained MFAT commitments to proactive monitoring and timely access to unedited interrogation recordings, and reasonably concluded those measures mitigated real risks of torture, protected fair trial rights and ensured the death penalty would not be applied; discretionary grounds relating to delay, health a…
14 Mar 2017

MCCARTNEY v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2017] NZHC 423

Citation

[2017] NZHC 423
Court

High Court

The appellant suffered no prejudice from the Ministry's delay; the Authority's factual finding that the appellant failed to apply earlier for personal reasons and not because of any erroneous action or inaction by the Ministry meant the s 80AA preconditions were not met, so there was no basis to backdate the benefit and the appeal must be dismissed.