New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mistake of fact

Legal area

Court

21 Sept 2023

NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND LTD v THE MINISTER FOR COVID-19 RESPONSE [2023] NZHC 2647

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2647
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the challenge: a difference of medical/scientific opinion does not amount to a reviewable mistake of fact; Ministers had access to balanced and adequate expert advice (including WHO and Ministry advice) and acted within the statutory purpose; NZBORA s14 was engaged but the limitation was justified and proportionate; s11 was not engaged by mask mandates; the Orders were not irrational or ultra vires.
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…
14 Sept 2022

THORNDON QUAY COLLECTIVE INC v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 2356

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2356
Court

High Court

The Court held the Council complied with its LGA decision-making duties: it identified and assessed reasonably practicable options via officer analysis, adequately consulted under s82, exercised s79 discretion appropriately for a medium significance decision, and did not proceed on any material mistake of fact regarding business impact or comparative cyclist safety; application dismissed.
1 Jul 2022

JW v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2022] NZCA 286

Citation

[2022] NZCA 286
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal and leave to commence judicial review were declined because the Court found the Tribunal applied the correct legal test under s207(1)(a), actively considered the claimed circumstances and evidence, the asserted translation differences and factual complaints did not meet the legal threshold to constitute errors of law, and the matters did not raise issues of general or public importance warranting referral to the High Court.
27 May 2022

BOURKE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 1210

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1210
Court

High Court

The appellant provided sufficient evidence to raise a plausible honest mistake that the suspension did not take immediate effect; the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew he was disqualified, the trial judge erred in assessing the evidence, and accordingly the conviction was quashed.
28 Apr 2022

NEW ZEALAND FOREST OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC v WAIROA DISTRICT COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 761

Citation

[2022] NZHC 761
Court

High Court

The application is dismissed because the Council lawfully exercised its rating powers by assessing differentials according to land use, affordability and local wellbeing with relevant evidence before it; it did not take impermissible account of landowners' personal wealth, did not make material factual mistakes, climate change was not a mandatory consideration in the rates allocation context because it was addressed in the long-term plan, and the decision was not irrational or unreasonable.
30 Apr 2019

ANZ SKY TOURS LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND TOURISM BOARD TRADING AS TOURISM NEW ZEALAND [2019] NZHC 925

Citation

[2019] NZHC 925
Court

High Court

The Court held Tourism NZ's final recommendation to revoke ANZ Sky Tours' ADS accreditation was reviewable; Tourism NZ breached natural justice by failing adequately to investigate disputed facts, failing to disclose the complainant's detailed complaints in a timely way and failing to give reasons for selecting the harshest penalty; the recommendation of revocation was disproportionate in the circumstances; the recommendation was quashed and the matter remitted to Tourism NZ to reconsider breaches and any penalty.
14 Nov 2018

NZME PUBLISHING LIMITED v WHANGANUI DISTRICT COURT [2018] NZHC 2952

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2952
Court

High Court

The District Court judge committed reviewable error by making a Permanent Suppression Order without apparent application of the s202 statutory test, relying on factual misapprehensions (that an interim suppression existed and that there had been an application for permanent suppression), and failing to give reasons; accordingly the Permanent Suppression Order was unlawful and is set aside (but not declared void ab initio).
11 May 2018

HANSA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v HIBBS [2018] NZHC 1036

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1036
Court

High Court

The default judgment was irregularly obtained because the claim did not fall within the exhaustive definition of a "liquidated demand" in r15.7, and, more importantly, Haldon demonstrated a good arguable defence to the plaintiff's claim for money had and received (the plaintiff Hansa did not establish the requisite mistake of fact), the delay in filing a defence was reasonably explained, and setting aside would not cause irreparable prejudice to creditors; accordingly the judgment obtained by default against Haldon was set aside.
29 Mar 2017

DEAN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2017] NZHC 588

Citation

[2017] NZHC 588
Court

High Court

Interim relief was granted because the applicant demonstrated particular adverse consequences — namely the loss of the contractual undertaking from the Minister not to deport her until a valid decision under s 177(3) was made — and showed a respectable case on multiple grounds (possible mistake of fact about the sponsor's criminal history, arguable breach of natural justice for failure to put prejudicial information to the applicant, and arguable failure to comply with s 177(5) in recording international obligations). Depriving the applicant of the benefit of the Minister's undertaking by dep…