New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Natural justice (audi alteram partem)

Legal area

Court

24 May 2022

BODY CORPORATE 68792 v LYNX TRUSTEES LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1156

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1156
Court

High Court

Because an administrative error resulted in the trustees' timely memorandum not reaching the Judge and they were not heard, the Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction to recall the sealed costs-approval order to avoid a breach of natural justice; the trustees will be permitted to respond as interested parties without formal joinder and the liquidators given an opportunity to reply, preserving the usual paper-based process for costs approvals and respecting the principle of finality subject to exceptional intervention.
13 Aug 2019

HA v REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY & ANOR [2019] NZHC 1956

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1956
Court

High Court

The appellant's firm, unqualified advice that the prior sole agency could be cancelled effectively neutralised any warning required by r 9.11; the mandated warning is substantive and must be unqualified to fulfil its consumer protection purpose; any procedural omission in identifying the specific rule did not cause unfairness or was curable; therefore breach of r 9.11 occurred and unsatisfactory conduct under s72 was established.
1 May 2018

CUNLIFFE v MARSH [2018] NZHC 948

Citation

[2018] NZHC 948
Court

High Court

Application was procedurally misconceived (wrong route for interim orders which should have been under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016), and on the evidence there was no seriously arguable breach of natural justice nor any real risk to the child that justified urgent interim injunctive relief; accordingly the injunction was declined.
28 Nov 2017

RATZAPPER AUSTRALASIA LTD v NOE [2017] NZHC 2931

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2931
Court

High Court

The Court refused to refuse recognition: the public policy ground was not made out on these facts. In a private law monetary dispute the surrogacy principle binds the party for counsel's defaults; there was no irretrievable or incompensable loss and the appropriate remedy lies against the respondent's legal advisers. Given the narrow public policy threshold and the need to protect finality of arbitration, the award is enforceable and is to be entered as a judgment.
10 Feb 2017

RICHARD ZHAO LAWYERS LTD v FAMILY COURT AT AUCKLAND & ANOR [2017] NZCA 6 [10 February 2017]

Citation

[2017] NZCA 6
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals: Asher J did not err in exercising his discretion to award modest costs of $4,000 given the background and practical compromise; Associate Judge Bell properly treated funds held by the solicitor as available for set-off, sensibly used the Law Society reviewer's report as a starting point for minimum indebtedness, adjourned to allow payment and dismissed the bankruptcy application once payment was made, and his costs classification, quantum and stay were within discretion.
1 Jul 2016

BU AND BU v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2016] NZHC 1499

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1499
Court

High Court

Although there was an arguable procedural breach in that the IPT granted leave to produce DVDs and issued a decision shortly after counsel advised the Tribunal the DVDs would be provided, the additional DVD and passport material would not have materially affected the outcome given the Tribunal's detailed adverse credibility findings and the absence of documentary proof linking the alleged common ancestor to the claimed family member; therefore the asserted error was not material or of sufficient public importance or exceptional individual injustice to justify grant of leave to appeal.
8 May 2015

RICHARD ZHAO LAWYERS LTD v FAMILY COURT AT AUCKLAND [2015] NZHC 983

Citation

[2015] NZAR 1038
Court

High Court

The impugned Family Court decisions were quashed because Mr Zhao and his firm had a material interest in the trust funds (a contractual lien for fees and a solicitor's undertaking) and were not given notice or an opportunity to be heard; the Court also failed to take those relevant matters into account, rendering the 23 December 2014 order and subsequent sealing and contempt‑related fixtures procedurally unlawful; accordingly those decisions were set aside and a substituted payment order was made, with a partial discharge of the undertaking.
7 May 2013

A v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2013] NZHC 988

Citation

[2013] NZHC 988
Court

High Court

The investigator did not exceed her terms of reference in expressing a cautious "strong suspicion" based on interviews and evidential indicators; the opinion was not unreasonable on administrative law grounds given the probative material and testing conducted, but the disclosure to A was adequate only in the context of a report submitted privately to the Commissioner and would be inadequate if the investigator intended the A‑related material for publication, in which case additional source material must be disclosed and A given an opportunity to respond.
11 Jun 2010

LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY V W HC WN CIV 2009-485-002191

Citation

openlaw-5b33d0b9_f544_447a_a6aa_61bf8c63f966.pdf
Court

High Court

The recall application was dismissed because no very special reason was shown to justify recalling the judgment; the challenged paragraphs were properly relied on to demonstrate that the LSA and LARP lacked the Crown's expert psychiatric opinions necessary for lawful and reasonable decision-making about legal aid and limitation, and their inclusion did not breach natural justice nor was likely to prejudice the trial judge.
5 Mar 2007

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE V DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU HC AK CIV 2006-404-3305

Citation

openlaw-4535d042_68cd_4e97_8a25_1beafc57341a.pdf
Court

High Court

The District Court's oral order was invalid for breach of natural justice because the Crown was not afforded an opportunity to be heard; substantively, s42(1)(b) of the Privacy Act requires that a "copy" be provided in a form that is accessible and useable by the particular defendant, which in many cases will require paper copies; the s42(2)(a) exception for "impair efficient administration" can justify electronic-only disclosure but the Crown must justify that exception through reasons and, if contested, by applying to the court with evidence; electronic delivery is not automatically suffici…