New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Nzbora claims

Legal area

Court

20 Jul 2023

JIM DAVID THACKER, Prisoner, of Auckland v ATTORNEY-GENERAL, sued for and on behalf of the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Wellington [2023] NZHC 1901

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1901
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the application: the directed segregation decisions were lawful exercises of power under s58 Corrections Act 2004, were justified by credible evidence of risk to security and safety, were not punitive but managerial, decision‑makers considered relevant factors including health and cultural issues, and AVL/contact denials were lawful under the Prison Operations Manual and policy given misconduct history and resource/ safety considerations; deference to correctional operational judgments was appropriate.
5 Jul 2023

FULLER v SERGEANT IAN CARTER NZ POLICE CORPORATION [2023] NZHC 1714

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1714
Court

High Court

Under r 4.56 the Court ordered Sergeant Ian Carter struck out as a defendant and the Attorney-General substituted because the plaintiff's allegations against the officer arose from actions in the course of duty, the Attorney-General is the appropriate representative and can provide full redress, and retaining the officer personally would be disproportionate and prejudicial.
22 Dec 2020

TOMAR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 3502

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3502
Court

High Court

Costs were awarded to the Attorney-General on a category 2, band B basis with disbursements because the applicant's claims were unsuccessful, the respondent had identified and warned of the claims' deficiencies and offered to assist, there was no public interest justification to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event, and the applicant's conduct caused additional costs; the applicant's impecuniosity did not justify withholding costs.
13 Oct 2020

MITCHELL v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 2683

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2683
Court

High Court

Applicant raised a serious question to be tried but mandatory interim relief compelling daily outdoor exercise could not be granted on the present pleadings and evidence because of jurisdictional limits on orders against the Crown under JRPA s15(3), lack of pleaded precision, and the need to preserve day-to-day management discretion where s69(2) exceptions may apply; accordingly the interim injunction application was dismissed and a prioritized substantive hearing directed.
9 Sept 2014

ROSSI v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2014] NZHC 2168

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2168
Court

High Court

The applicant failed to comply with statutory requirements to regularise his immigration status or to lodge timely appeals; INZ and the immigration officer considered his personal circumstances under s177; the absolute discretions in ss61 and 177 and the statutory scheme, plus absence of irrationality or unlawful breach of NZBORA or international obligations, meant destitution and incarceration did not constitute special reasons to cancel the deportation order; application dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

JIM DAVID THACKER, Prisoner, of Auckland v ATTORNEY-GENERAL, sued for and on behalf of the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Wellington [2023] NZHC 1901

FULLER v SERGEANT IAN CARTER NZ POLICE CORPORATION [2023] NZHC 1714

TOMAR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 3502

MITCHELL v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 2683

ROSSI v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2014] NZHC 2168