New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Natural justice (procedural fairness)

Legal area

Court

2 Jun 2022

VANDERVIS v DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL [2022] NZCA 219

Citation

[2022] NZCA 219
Court

Court of Appeal

The Chief Executive validly initiated the Code of Conduct process on behalf of a staff member; the investigator's preliminary assessment was a limited materiality gatekeeping step that did not require the respondent to be heard; the full investigation and the subsequent Council hearing together provided the respondent with adequate opportunity to know the case against him and to answer it; there was no breach of natural justice and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Jun 2021

A LAWYER v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2021] NZSC 75

Citation

[2021] NZSC 75
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the Court of Appeal erred in applying settled principles governing judicial review of preliminary investigatory decisions; the matters were at an early investigatory stage, no exceptional circumstances or miscarriage of justice was shown, and further statutory remedies and later stages of the process could address any apparent errors.
11 May 2021

LOGAN AND NG v MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION [2021] NZHC 1050

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1050
Court

High Court

Interim preservation order continued because the applicants' challenge was clearly arguable, there was a real risk of irreversible prejudice (loss of freehold, demolition and extinguishment of tenants' leases) if the proclamation took effect, and the balance of convenience and overall interests of justice favoured preserving the status quo pending a substantive hearing which could be allocated promptly; potential procedural unfairness and mistakes of fact in the material to the Minister reinforced need for preservation.
25 Jul 2019

C v THE LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER [2019] NZHC 1763

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1763
Court

High Court

The High Court set aside the LCRO decision because the LCRO breached natural justice by failing to disclose and put to the applicant the critical legal basis of its decision and by delay; because of that breach the LCRO's direction was nullified and was set aside with no order for reconsideration; the Court also granted suppression of the applicant's name and prohibited inspection or copying of the court file without leave.
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.
17 Mar 2017

W (SC156/2016) v THE FAMILY COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2017] NZSC 35

Citation

(2017) 31 FRNZ 204
Court

Supreme Court

The application for an extension of time to appeal is dismissed because no adequate explanation for the lengthy delay was provided and there are no exceptional circumstances to permit a direct appeal; additionally, s88 of the CYF Act must be read as creating an interim order that lapses on determination, and the decision that the interim order had lapsed was a procedural declaration that did not breach natural justice or affect substantive rights requiring relief.
28 Oct 2016

REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER v CV AND CW & ANOR [2016] NZCA 520

Citation

[2016] NZCA 520
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the Officer's appeal and upheld the High Court's remittal: the Tribunal erred in law by failing to assess properly whether compulsory military religious observance or penalties for refusal could amount to serious harm amounting to persecution linked to a Convention ground; the correct staged inquiry is (1) what will be the claimant's predicament on return, (2) is there a real chance of persecution, which requires identifying the right at issue, whether that right is breached (including lawfulness of any limitation), whether the breach will cause serious harm, whether the f…
3 Jun 2015

DOTCOM v THE DEPUTY SOLICITOR-GENERAL [2015] NZHC 1197

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1197
Court

High Court

Strike out application refused. The plaintiffs raised arguable and non‑frivolous grounds: (a) the fact the US forfeiture order was obtained by default via fugitive disentitlement could be a relevant consideration for the Deputy Solicitor‑General under MACMA s55 and s27 and cannot be summarily dismissed at strike out; (b) s143 CPRA does not clearly or unambiguously provide the plaintiffs an adequate post‑registration remedy and should not be treated as a privative ouster of judicial review; (c) reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the delegation to a deputy embedded in Crown Law and co…
10 Jun 2013

LEEF & ORS v BIDOIS & ORS [2013] NZHC 1349

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1349
Court

High Court

Although the parties described the process as an 'arbitration' and intended a final binding determination, the dispute resolution agreement did not submit a dispute 'in respect of a defined legal relationship' because the panel's remit was only to decide historical mana whenua status and not to allocate Treaty settlement assets as required by the mana whenua process agreement; therefore it was not an arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996 and the resulting award must be set aside.
22 Nov 2012

ZHAO v THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY HC AK CIV 2012-404-2777

Citation

openlaw-02b5223c_12b5_4652_a38b_6a78ab950c6e.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the Law Society breached a legitimate expectation in convening the Fitness for Practice Committee without providing prior explanation and opportunity to address the Committee, granted limited judicial review relief (a declaration and mandatory orders as to disclosure and opportunity to address the Committee), rejected the defendant's prematurity defence, and awarded costs to the plaintiff but reduced the claimed band B scale to reflect excessive items and the pleadings; resulting in an award of $18,000 costs and $3,500 disbursements after adjustments and a requirement that proo…