New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mootness

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 2023

MITCHELL v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZCA 605

Citation

[2023] NZCA 605
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal: the IOMS Preliminary Score is not determinative and may be overridden where relevant information (such as conduct on remand) was not captured; consideration of incident reports without convictions did not amount to double counting or denial of natural justice given the reconsideration process; the challenged classification decision is now moot, subsequent unchallenged reviews and release mean no practical effect would follow, and the Court declined in its discretion to hear a moot appeal because the merits were weak and no significant new public law issue was r…
17 Nov 2023

O’NEILL v HIPKINS [2023] NZCA 572

Citation

[2023] NZCA 572
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is an abuse of process and is struck out: Walker J correctly applied r 5.35B to strike out the judicial review as a collateral attack on prior appellate judgments, the interlocutory application was moot, and the Supreme Court's limited comment did not entitle the appellant to a hearing; accordingly the Court of Appeal strikes out the appeal under r 44A.
26 Oct 2023

DOUGLAS v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZCA 522 [26 October 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZCA 522
Court

Court of Appeal

The court adjourned the r29A extension application to the hearing of the appeal against the 2023 High Court judgment because the panel hearing that appeal is best placed to determine both the leave application and the substantive issues; interests of justice, finality and efficiency require a single hearing to avoid separate panels and duplication.
19 Oct 2023

DAMON EXLEY v NZME PUBLISHING LIMITED [2023] NZSC 136

Citation

[2023] NZSC 136
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was granted because, although the specific takedown order issue had become moot following conclusion of the trial, the legal question whether the Court of Appeal was correct to quash the High Court takedown order raised a point of sufficient public importance to justify granting leave.
14 Sept 2023

O’NEILL v LEAUPEPE [2023] NZHC 2574

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2574
Court

High Court

The proceeding was a plainly abusive use of court process and met the clearness threshold under r 5.35B: the Registrar's response was managerial and not a reviewable usurpation, the original procedural rejection was cured when compliant documents were filed making the complaint moot, and the applicant's extravagant, unsupported allegations and misdirected claims justified striking the proceeding out pre-service.
27 Jul 2023

TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN v ATTORNEY_x001e_GENERAL [2023] NZSC 92

Citation

[2023] NZSC 92
Court

Supreme Court

The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish that it was necessary in the interests of justice and that exceptional circumstances existed to permit a direct appeal; the High Court correctly struck out the proceedings as moot/frivolous given the offer of a rehearing and the ongoing appeal to the Social Security Appeal Authority, and the transcript issue did not alter that outcome.
12 Jul 2023

CATHERINE ANNE SIXTUS v JACINDA ARDERN [2023] NZSC 84

Citation

[2023] NZSC 84
Court

Supreme Court

The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is dismissed because the underlying Court of Appeal appeal has been abandoned rendering the fee waiver challenge moot and the statutory criteria for leave under s 74 are not met.
5 Jul 2023

SOUTHLAND FISH AND GAME COUNCIL v SOUTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 1741

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1741
Court

High Court

On balance the r 15.23 presumption was displaced because the applicants achieved the practical outcome sought (withdrawal of the challenged application) but given deficiencies in applicants' conduct (failure to further inquire before issuing proceedings) and the inappropriateness of recovering expert costs in judicial review, the just and equitable disposition is that each party bear its own costs.
2 Feb 2023

SINGH v THE NZ PAROLE BOARD & ORS [2023] NZHC 66

Citation

[2023] NZHC 66
Court

High Court

The proceeding was struck out under r 15.1 of the High Court Rules 2016 because the applicant had effectively abandoned the action by failing to participate and the principal relief sought had been rendered moot by the removal of the curfew; striking out is appropriate and proportionate, and the applicant may commence fresh proceedings if he chooses.
6 Dec 2022

COLIN SAMUEL HENRY v MINISTER OF JUSTICE [2022] NZSC 141

Citation

[2022] NZSC 141
Court

Supreme Court

Extension of time granted because delay was adequately explained and caused no prejudice; leave to appeal refused because the applicant did not identify errors in the courts below, there was no risk of miscarriage of justice, and the case was effectively moot given the appointment had been made; evidence showed diversity considerations were taken into account and the substantive and procedural challenges failed.